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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Alan,

The most important thing in my opinion is that we approve a critical
infrastructure policy in the next meeting. Some folks in the region are
already "in halt" with IPv6 because the lack of this, which is really a
terrible problem.

I see several possibilities here, but I don't know how to proceed, if we
need different policy proposals (for each choice), or if the board can
approve a policy which text is "fixed" depending on the consensus during the
meeting. I think this is done in other regions.

I hope you understand what I mean. For example, it could happen that even
the proposed PI talks about /32, if the meeting reach consensus on that
policy but using a /48 ? Or we need to submit another version with the /48 ?

Depending on your answer, I can suggest several alternatives for the prefix
size in PI:

1) Use something such as what LACNIC uses for critical infrastructures
regarding the prefix size is something like: "prefixes from /48 to /32".
This gives the freedom to AfriNIC to implement a /48 if it is considered
enough, or a /32 if the requester justify the need (or whatever in the
middle). I understand that LACNIC decided this path to avoid a *long*
discussion about the prefix size when that policy was approved.

2) We can build a text that defines a /44 for the PI prefix size, such as in
ARIN, but reserve the /32, and give AfriNIC the freedom to allocate whatever
is justified by each requester.

3) Keep the existing text for /32.

4) May be somebody else has other possible suggestions about this specific
point ?

The other decision is if the community want a temporary PI policy, such as
the actual text, or a permanent one.

By the way, I understand that if the PI policy is approved, then there is no
need for the critical infrastructures one ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> Responder a: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
> Fecha: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:53:20 +0200
> Para: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [policy-wg] AfriNIC policy: IPv6 for critical infrastructure
> 
> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.