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

[Frank Habicht]

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