Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments v1

{tab Details}

 {tab Details}

1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

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).

2.0 Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem

Section 2.6 (General Definitions/Assignment), explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assignments... are not to be sub-assigned to other parties”.

This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC 8273), by means of new text at the end of whatever text is available at the IPv6 PI assignments policy.

3. Proposal

New Paragraph at the end of 6.8 of the CPM, as follows:

4. Revision History

5. References

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

 {/tab}