[afripv6-discuss] Are AfriNic's /48 being filtered?

[Leo Vegoda]

Hi Jordi,

On 28 Aug 2007, at 10:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> I see your point. However, I already got similar inputs from some  
> people in
> ARIN region. This doesn't mean that with the time the situation can  
> change,
> but the issue is that the policy *today* is not so useful as it  
> should be
> and didn't help the provision of critical IPv6 services, moreover,  
> can be
> against the stability of the deployment and raise negative view  
> from service
> providers and customers "oh, it doesn't work because it is IPv6, it is
> broken".
>
> I think operators had been educated to allow /32 or shorter  
> prefixes, and
> there will be a hard time to re-educate them.

There are very, very few ASs providing IPv6 connectivity and  
services. Getting the word out should not be difficult at all.

> Not really sure if they are
> unhappy with longer prefixes, but probably many of them want to  
> make sure to
> avoid more-specifics and PI may look like that, so somehow, yes,  
> they may be
> reluctant (and then not just and education issue) to carry prefixes  
> longer
> than /32.

As long as they can check the reference page on AfriNIC's web site  
when they set up their filters there shouldn't be a major problem,  
surely? That is what happens with IPv4 and it mostly works most of  
the time.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda