Hi, On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 02:41:05PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > Not sure about the history, but the current version of this "loophole" > is quite narrowly defined in the current policy (section 6.2): > > «IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a > service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the > service provider's infrastructure.» > > While it does not differentiate between dynamic and static assignments, > do note the use of work «solely».
Indeed. That's the thing, p2p links, which ended up being "okayish"
for "end user get a single /32, on the link, and nothing more".
[..]
> For IPv6 we use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for these ranges, and would be nice
> to be able to ("legally") do something similar for IPv4.
I'd say "at least two members of the WG see this as a valid problem
statement, so a policy proposal might be called for" :-)
(The "should we have competing proposals for the same document active
at the same time" discussion is left to the WG chairs, of course)
Gert Doering
-- LIR admin
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
