Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Mon Oct 9 16:44:34 UTC 2006

Hi all,

Talking about the policy development process in the region in general, as I
feel that we should try to be *ALL* more "visible" if we want the thing
moving on.

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

This is a must for the open policy development process. The participation in
meetings is important, but never a must.

The policy chair and board should judge the consensus based on *MANY* folks
in the list, not just a dozen of us.


> De: Mark J Elkins <mje at>
> Organización: Posix Systems
> Responder a: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at>
> Fecha: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:32:34 +0200
> Para: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at>
> Asunto: Re: [policy-wg] AfriNIC policy: IPv6 for critical infrastructure
> Vincent Ngundi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> * I agree with Jordi, exceptions should be made to organisations that run
>> critical services like TLD root servers (ccTLD managers for instance). These
>> organisations require a PI address space as this will enable them to have
>> more control over the address space they use.
>> * Policy ratification should be done online. A system of determining whether
>> a 
>> majority of the community is in agreement should be established. Face-to-face
>> ratification has it's own drawbacks. For instance, if current policy bars an
>> organisation from getting Internet resources to perform certain crucial tests
>> and/or tasks or to provide critical Internet services, then that organisation
>> deserves to have a mechanism at their disposal through which they can propose
>> policies that can be ratfied within a reasonable period (reasonable in that
>> the period can even be included in a Project Plan if need be).
>> * The idea is NOT to ease the process of assigning Internet resources, but to
>> reduce the effort in implementing Internet services and technologies. Rigid
>> policy formulation structures may contribute to the slow
>> implementation/deployment of new Internet technologies.
>> * I also propose that these prefixes be assigned on a temporary basis (with a
>> defined testing period) but with the option of retaining them based on some
>> defined RIR criteria.
> Do we have consensus about providing PI to critical infrastructure yet?
> I'll be at the meeting in Mauritius. That meeting seems to have great
> focus on IPV6.
> (Which is Great!!!)
> I want to potentially apply for some private IPV6 numbering for UniForum
> S.A. - the "" registry system. The COZA system peers with multiple
> ISP's at JINX and uses multiple people for Transit - so can not afford
> to be locked to a single provider and would prefer to have its own
> allocation. Its the largest domain registry in the AfriNIC region
> (almost 270000 domains). Part of the validation for a new domain is that
> each nameserver is queried to check that all nameservers are
> authoritative - so until there is native IPV6 - we can't register any
> domain that contains a nameserver that maps to an IPV6 address.
> UniForum SA currently has 206.223.136/24 - which was allocated out of a
> pool for critical resources. We now directly pay AfriNIC yearly for this
> address space.
> -- 
>   .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
>  /| /|       / /__       mje at  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco
> / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> _______________________________________________
> policy-wg mailing list
> policy-wg at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

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.

More information about the RPD mailing list