[policy-wg] AfriNIC policy: IPv6 for critical infrastructure

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Frank,

My email was not referring to any specific proposal, just trying to get more
people voicing opinions about all those under discussion.

Regarding the prefix size, the point is still the same. The RIRs doesn't
warrantee routability, but I think it will be a bit silly to set a policy
that uses a prefix size that can't be viewed from everywhere, especially for
critical infrastructures.

I've seen this with several critical infrastructures in other regions, where
the /48 was not reachable some times. How much "good" is that for a
"critical infrastructure" ? For me the answer is clear ...

The only "disadvantage" of a /32 is that some people could consider it as a
waste. But let's be realistic, even if the predictions can always fail,
which current policies the life of IPv6 will be around 480 years. Do you
really believe we are "wasting" addressing space ?

Let me give you a very simple example of the routability problem. APNIC has
a /32 for their own use. However, they announce two separate /33 blocks,
because they have two data centers. Some days I can't reach their web site,
because some ISPs don't like the /33.

Do you still think a /32 is bad and a /48 will make it ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Frank Habicht <geier-lists-afrinic-policywg at tih.co.tz>
> Responder a: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
> Fecha: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:50:04 +0300
> Para: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [policy-wg] AfriNIC policy: IPv6 for critical infrastructure
> 
> On 10/14/2006 4:53 PM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>   
>>> I think that it will be useful to hear many more people in the list
>>> telling "yes I like (or I don't like) this or that policy". Even if
>>> you don't have a clear view about a given policy, but you don't oppose
>>> to it, saying so will help.
>>>     
>> 
>> I like the policy except for one thing:  I think that a /32 is
>> outrageously larger than people seeking space under this proposal
>> are likely to need, and I would like to see it changed to a /48 from
>> a reserved /40 block, to allow easy growth if it turns out to be
>> necessary, and to allow reclamation of the unused parts of the /40 block
>> in future if that turns out to be desirable.
>> 
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>> 
>>   
> 
> 
> I agree. With all points. [/44 reserved as in ARIN, instead of /40
> should also be fine]
> And I believe routability (though AfriNIC is officially not concerned)
> is not a problem.
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ipv6_routing_table.pdf
> (pg 13: "global" ipv6 routing table is 734 routes and 86 of them are /48)
> 
> 
> btw: this is still about my critical infrastructure proposal, right? or
> Jordi's PI ?
> They seem to overlap a bit and we might confuse them in this discussion.
> Especially since the one entity apparently immediately ready to go for it
> (Uniforum SA) would be eligible under both proposed policies.
> 
> 
> Should I specify my proposal then to include assignment sizes?
> 
> I would replace this sentence:
> For critical DNS server operations ( root DNS, ccTLD DNS, and SLD DNS
> with justification ) default assignment size is equal to the default
> assignment size for PI assignments of IPv6 address space to End Users
> [as defined in separate policy].
> 
> With this one:
> For critical DNS server operations ( root DNS, ccTLD DNS, and SLD DNS
> with justification ) default assignment size is one /48 from a reserved /40.
> 
> 
> (as mentioned no problem to change /40 to /44)
> (the reference in the original version isn't good as such - done because
> I wanted to hit just the right size for "routability")
> Comments?
> 
> Question, including to AfriNIC staff:
> "On request AfriNIC assigns IPv6 address ressource to [operators of]
> critical infrastructure."
> What is preferred, with or without the "operators of" ? I meant to have
> the final version without the brackets, with "operators of" either
> included or not.
> Does AfriNIC assign to net work operators or to infrastructure? (I lean
> towards operators, and to include the 2 words)
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> policy-wg mailing list
> policy-wg at afrinic.net
> http://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.