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

[Alan Barrett]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Frank Habicht wrote:
> On 10/14/2006 4:53 PM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> > 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.
>
> btw: this is still about my critical infrastructure proposal,
> right? or Jordi's PI ?

I have the same size concerns about both proposals.

> 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)

/48 from a reserved /44 is fine for me.  For both the PI proposal and the
critical infrastructure proposal.

> (the reference in the original version isn't good as such - done because
> I wanted to hit just the right size for "routability")
> Comments?

Routability is not an issue of size.  Routability is an issue of
configuration.  I think it's safe to assume:

(a) AfriNIC will use different super blocks for different purposes;

(b) AfriNIC will publish which super blocks will be used for which
purposes, and the smallest allocation size in each super block;

(c) People who filter based on prefix length will adjust their filters
according to the policies published in (b) above;

(d) People who announce address space in units equal to the units
allocated to them will not have routability problems caused by the
filters mentioned in (c) above;

(e) People who announce address space in more-specific units smaller
than the units allocated to them might have routability problems.

It might be a good idea to explicitly mention (a) and (b) in the policy
proposal.  AfriNIC has no control over (c), (d) or (e).

> 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)

The space would be assigned *to* the operator, *for* the facility.  There
should be a way of reclaiming the space if the facility ceases to
function or ceases to need the space, regardless of whether or not the
operator stays in business.

-apb (Alan Barrett)