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

[Alan Barrett]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 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 ?

Yes, I believe that /32 is a waste.  I don't believe the predictions
about 480 years; I expect the rate of use to change before the end of
the 480 years.

> 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.

I submit that the reachability problems are not because "/33 is too long
to get through filters"; but rather because "this particular /33 is more
specific than what was allocated".  If what is allocated is a /48, then
filters will be designed to take that into account.

I envisage filters that allow /32s but block /33s in parts of the
address space where operators know that the smallest allocation is a
/32s; and that allow /48s but block /49s in parts of the address space
where operators know that the smallest allocation is a /48.

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

Yes.

--apb (Alan Barrett)