Clarification of IPv6 Sub-Assignments

Original Language Español Date Published 20/03/2018 Last Modified 29/03/2018
Last Call for Comments Period Does not apply Date Ratified Does not apply Implementation Date Does not apply
Status Under discussion Download TXT PDF XML DOCX
See other versions 1.0 2.0 (compare)

Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Proposal Data

Policy Type: LACNIC
Id: LAC-2018-7
Last version: 2
Presentations:

Summary

The IPv4 policy on direct assignments from LACNIC to end users mentions sub-delegation (2.3.3.4) and specifically prohibits sub-delegating to third parties.
The IPv6 policy contains no such explicit prohibition, except in the case of micro-assignments (LACNIC shall not make micro-assignments, 4.5.5).
However, section 1.9 (Definitions) – which applies to all LACNIC policies – explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assignments... are not to be sub-assigned to other parties”.
This proposal seeks to clarify the text of the IPv6 policy in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273).

Rationale

When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did not consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even amplified in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs.
In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes (/64) is increasingly common.
Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots, or the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and many other similar cases.
Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64).

Text

Current text: No such text exists.
New text:
New paragraph after existing paragraph 4.5.4. (Direct Assignments to End Sites).
The same paragraph after the final paragraph of 4.5.5. (IPv6 Micro-Assignments).
The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots and point-to-point links or VPNs.
The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment and is therefore not allowed. Only the addressing of the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.

Additional Information

-

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

A similar proposal has been discussed in the RIPE region and is waiting for forum chairs to declare consensus.

Public Comments by LACNIC Staff

LACNIC STAFF´S IMPACT ANALYSIS - Proposal LAC-2018-7 - version 1

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
---------------------------------------------
Applicability
------------
This proposal would apply to initial IPv6 assignments to end users.

Modifications to the current text
--------------------------------
The Policy Manual would be modified as follows:

• Addition of the following paragraph in sections 4.5.4 (Direct Assignments to End Sites) and 4.5.5 (IPv6 Micro-Assignments):

The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots and point-to-point links or VPNs.

The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment and is therefore not allowed. Only the addressing of the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.

LACNIC Staff Comments
-------------------------
No negative impacts have been observed.

Impact of the policy on the registration system and address management
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would not require any changes to the registration system.

Privacy Policy