[v6ops] Re: [dhcwg] Re: Re: [IPv6]Re: Android now supports DHCPv6 PD

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, this is what I’ve already fixed several years ago in order to avoid the need to pre-justify for example a /47 in a big end-site, but the discussion here is another one.

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.

The point here is the difference RIPE NCC assigns to an end-user, not an LIR. An end user only can assign addresses, not prefixes, for example to visitors in the WiFi. Another example will be a DC with is not a LIR, but an end-user (this was part of the discussion some years ago), or a WiFi hotspot provider, etc.

I tried to fix that long long long time ago, but it was rejected not reaching consensus. Now there is an RFC to back my previous observation about this being a problem, so working already on fixing that with an updated policy proposal.

Anyway, this is a discussion for the address-policy wg, keep your time for that when it comes!

Saludos,
Jordi

@jordipalet


> El 23 sept 2025, a las 11:03, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]> escribió:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> On 23/09/2025, 08:39, "Tore Anderson" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Den 22.09.2025 12:38, skreiv Tim Chown:
> >
> > I had understood that it is an issue within RIPE, and that Jordi was 
> > going to look at a proposal to change/clarify the text.  Apologies if 
> > that’s not the case.
> >
> The RIPE address policy is fairly straight-forward in this regard, it's 
> actually just two lines:
> 
> «Assignments larger than a /48 (shorter prefix) or additional 
> assignments exceeding a total of a /48 must be based on address usage or 
> because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments.
> 
> In case of an audit or when making a request for a subsequent 
> allocation, the LIR must be able to present documentation justifying the 
> need for assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End-Site.»
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738/#54-assignment
> 
> In other words, assigning blocks larger than /48 is totally fine, as 
> long as there exists a reason to do so. Operating a wireless network 
> with 64k+ Android devices simultaneously requesting /64s via DHCPv6-PD 
> obviously qualifies as a valid justification for a larger assignment, so 
> I honestly don't see the problem here.
> 
> 
> That’s great, thanks Tore.
> 
> Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.