Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses
is against the policy.
Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy! It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns English as a language of communication will learn that these two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one another. Even worse (Horrors!) these two words can be used in business outside of the context of the RIRs. ISPs can allocate circuit bandwidth to customers, assign them to router ports, distribute IP addresses to them, etc. Inside the business he can certainly assign 10 addresses to his customer, however the very fact that he is choosing to allocate the customer 10 addresses shows that he is doing a private act. Since it is a private act, we don't want to know that he distributed 10 addresses to this customer and therefore, the allotment of 10 addresses does not need to be registered in the RIPE database. If he had given out an entire /64 to the customer we still don't need to see this apportionment in the database. The addresses designated for a customer only need to be seen in the database when the act of earmarking these addresses for customer use is in alignment with the RIPE policy. Presumably, at a technical level, if there is no route created in the service provider's OSPF or ISIS then it doesn't need to be published. But don't take my word for that because I really don't understand what RPE-267 3.3 says.
The policy is a bit vague here, admitted.
I agree. --Michael Dillon
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:44 +0100, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses
is against the policy.
Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy!
Not in text, but as an ISP, per the policy, you say that you are going to assign /48's to endsites. If one is only going to give out single IP's then you are an endsite, thus you are only supposed to be getting a /48 in the first place.
It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns English as a language of communication will learn that these two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one another.
When I allocate 10km^2 of land for a building project I still do not assign that 10km^2 of land to anybody. It's allocated, thus waiting to be assigned. Also I am quite sure that when I mention "IP" here that people will read this as "Internet Protocol", most likely not evening thinking of the long version, and not as "IPR", while lawyers read IP as "Intellectual Propery" and don't even know the term IPR which engineers know stands for "Intellectual Property Rights". All is english, still doesn't mean the same thing. Context does matter. Then again, I am not a native english speaker and I don't grab a copy of Websters for every word, but it is still how I and I guess many others, read them. It also has to do mostly with the familiarity of process. Greets, Jeroen
Hi, On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:44:32AM +0100, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses
is against the policy.
Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy!
Please read the policy documents. There is no provisioning for assignment of
It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns English as a language of communication will learn that these two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one another.
It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not so unsual to assign very specific meanings to certain terms when being used in certain professional environments. The most important point is to define exactly what the word specifies, and follow the official definitions *of this profession* when discussing details. You can't go to a lawyer either and argue about the fact that some generic terms have different meanings in a lawmaking context. That's the way language works.
Even worse (Horrors!) these two words can be used in business outside of the context of the RIRs. ISPs can allocate circuit bandwidth to customers, assign them to router ports, distribute IP addresses to them, etc.
Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the specific and precisely defined words "assignment" an "allocation" in the context IP address distribution.
Inside the business he can certainly assign 10 addresses to his customer, however the very fact that he is choosing to allocate the customer 10 addresses shows that he is doing a private act.
Please re-read the policy documents. The IP address distribution policies very specifically specify the rules how address distribution to 3rd parties are to be done, and every LIR signs a document that states "yes, we will follow all agreed-upon policies and procedures". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com