[afripv6-discuss] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

[BONGO Abdoulkadri]

Hi,

Is there a problem if Afrinic come back on this /32 allocation ?
If yes, tell Jeroen (and all the community), they will understand ;
if realy not and if there is no other reason (like numerical justify 
values )
let's go in this way. It's just a point of vue.

Regards

Jeroen Massar wrote:

>Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:
>[..]
>  
>
>>>Wow, so you make a new 'company' in 911 land and say "I am going to
>>>allocate a
>>>single /48" and you get a FULL /32 even when you will never ever ever
>>>use it
>>>or even are going to think about using it?
>>>      
>>>
>>I think you have missed the point a) which says "be an LIR". So you must
>>already be an LIR (and go through the LIR setup process) to get IPv6
>>allocation from AfrINIC.
>>    
>>
>
>Is it that difficult to become an LIR then? Last time I checked it
>simply means having a registered company in a country and paying the
>bills. For the rest, nothing policy wise will stop one from becoming one.
>
>  
>
>>>The first "organization" which is using this to waste space seems to be:
>>>
>>>inet6num:       2001:42d0::/32
>>>netname:        AfriNIC-IPv6-1
>>>descr:          AfriNIC
>>>descr:          RIR
>>>country:        MU
>>>
>>>Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network?
>>>10-50? Are
>>>they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going
>>>to have
>>>a need for 65536 of those /48's?
>>>      
>>>
>>You can not take AfriNIC own allocation case to illustrate your
>>assertion here
>>    
>>
>
>Why not? It is clearly the first block that has been using this policy.
>
>Some other people mentioned that you might have been using the "Critical
>Infrastructure" policy, but clearly you are not, otherwise you would
>have mentioned that, but you did not.
>
>Also even that policy mentions that a /32 is the maximum size and not
>the default, meaning that one still has to justify that address space.
>
>  
>
>>We have allocated that bloc to our own Infrastructure (which has three
>>locations to be connected together) so each with its own /48.
>>Further to that we have other IPv6 Internal projects which will
>>probably require several /48.
>>    
>>
>
>So you allocate 65536 /48's because you have *three* offices and maybe
>some "big projects". I don't see why those big projects require the need
>for individual /48's. Reminder: a /48 is 65536 /64's and in total that
>contains several millions of /128's to be used for addressing.
>
>Under that premise, is every website hosted by a virtual hoster also
>getting their own /48? That will be a huge waste of address space when
>you justify it like that. I sincerely hope that that is not the
>justification that AfriNIC is using, as when that is the case it is
>really disproportionate to the rest of the world.
>
>  
>
>>As RIR I think we are in the position to evaluate our own need
>>before making an allocation and if it was made be sure that is
>>after careful evaluation.
>>    
>>
>
>I wonder how 'careful' this evaluation was and I am seriously doubting
>any further 'evaluation'. Seeing that three (small) offices and some
>unspecified projects
>
>A /45 (8 /48's) would have been correctly justified by the above, but a
>/32 (65536 /48's) is really not.
>
>That you want a globally routable prefix and your own chunk of space is
>fine, but don't waste (not waist) the address space.
>
>  
>
>>>Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough",
>>>but being> sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice
>>>slot in the routing tables is a bit over done.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't see  the waist.
>>    
>>
>
>You don't see a waste of 65500 /48's which can otherwise really be used
>by the new PI policy which your membership has voted on and setup? wow.
>
>Why does that PI policy exist when one is going to give out /32's for
>small sites anyway? And yes AfriNIC is a small site. Now if you had more
>than 200 offices and thousands of employees or what about real customers
>who are people and users themselves, then a /32 might be justified, but
>in this case, far from.
>
>[..]
>  
>
>>>RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need
>>>must justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is
>>>a really really bad idea.
>>>      
>>>
>>That is what we do. You can not have such affirmation based on a single
>>case.
>>    
>>
>
>Thus you admit that the justification was wrong, but just because you
>made a mistake once (which you can still easily turn back btw as the
>prefix is not in use yet, or just chunk it down to a /45) it can't
>really be called a mistake?
>
>  
>
>>>In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in
>>>Africa and presto!
>>>      
>>>
>>You won't get it like that.
>>    
>>
>
>Clearly you can, otherwise that /32 you have now would not be there
>would it not?
>
>Greets,
> Jeroen
>
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>afripv6-discuss mailing list
>afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss
>  
>