Hi Kai,
You’re missing that 2016-04 is for the
clarification of IPv6 PI, not PA.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
On 17.01.2019
15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for that server, that's why, I think the policy should allow that (this is clearly now allowed now).
Let's consult ripe-707:
2.6. Assign
To “assign” means to delegate
address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within
the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must
only be made for specific purposes documented by specific
organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other
parties.
Providing another entity with
separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet used on a
link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a
sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors
connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a
server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and
setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.
2.9. End Site
An End Site is defined as an End
User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship
(same or associated entities) with a service provider that
involves:
· that
service provider assigning address space to the End User
· that
service provider providing transit service for the End User
to other sites
· that
service provider carrying the End User's traffic
· that
service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
contains the End User's assignment
By these definitions, only an IR ("2.1. Internet Registry
(IR)") can "assign" allocated address space to non-IRs, i. e.
ISPs or End Users, in the context of ripe-707.
The term "ISP" is not wll defined within ripe-707 except for
"LIRs are generally ISPs whose customers are primarily End
Users and possibly other ISPs" in "2.4. Local Internet
Registry (LIR)". The graph in "2. Definitions" suggests that
ISPs are the entities that are actually creating the Internet,
whereas (L)IRs are involved in distributing IP space only.
Since, following 2.6., only an (I)SP _that also is an (L)IR_
could, acting in it's (L)IR role, "assign" address space, 2.9.
should therefore receive a friendly "s/service provider/ISP/g"
and have the first bullet point removed.
On the other hand, 2.6. in it's current form – except for the
"separate addresses (not prefixes)" issue, as any singke
address IS technically also a /128 prefix – seems rather clear
to me: if it's for the documented "specific use within the
Internet infrastructure they operate", it's fine. Otherwise, a
separate assignment is needed for either a new specific use
_or a different End User_, so the ISP or End User (or the ISP
for it's End User) will have to request that from an (L)IR
(which it may be itself, if the ISP or End User is an LIR as
well).
Thus, if you need "multiple addresses" for your "physical
server" and you received an assignment for your infrastructure
including your server(s), I cannot see a conflict with
ripe-707. If you want to add a dedicated server for a customer
of yours, I'd expect you to get a new (non-PI) prefix (i. e.
no less than a /64 as per 5.4.1.) for this different End User
from your LIR of choice (or have that End User apply for a /48
PIv6 via your cooperative LIR).
Regards,
-kai