[policy-wg] IPV6 PI space

Thu Dec 14 14:48:22 UTC 2006

Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> Unfortunately I was unable to attend the AfriNIC meeting in Mauritius due to
> other commitments, however, having been involved in the P.I debate for a
> while and having kept a close watch on the developments in this regard
> around the world, I tend to take a different view on this.
>   
Yup - we missed you :-) Was a lovely location.
> I firmly believe that with regards P.I space, a /48 allocation is enough.
> Firstly, for IXP space, there is a trend to move towards /126 networks on
> point to point allocations (do not use /127's, there are a variety of
> reasons for this), therefore, IXP's could operate off a single /48,
> utilizing /64's per IXP, and utilizing /126 networks for the actual peering
> requirements.
>   
Our teachers in Mauritius (Jordi and Phillip Smith) seemed to suggest 
that a point-to-point connection should use a /126 but for almost every 
other case, use a /64 - ie - for individual machines on a LAN (including 
Routers). Regardless - a /48 make perfect sense for an IXP. What I am 
suggesting is rather issue a /44 to the local industry body that is 
managing the infrastructure to reduce the work-load of AfriNIC. Either 
way - the extra number of routes in global routing tables will be the 
same - which should be zero - excepting for access to local IXP's. This 
is meant to be a Policy for African IXP's.  I really don't see more than 
4000 ISPA type organisations in Africa.
> Secondly, with regards to end user networks, for AfriNIC to allocate /32's
> in P.I space would again run contrary to what the global trends are, ARIN
> has agreed to /48 P.I space, and (someone correct me if I 'm wrong here),
> APNIC is about to ratify their /48 P.I policy.  
>
> Considering that /48 amounts to 2^16 (65536) /64's, each of which can be an
> end point network, a /48 should be more than sufficient for P.I allocations
> to individual companies.  ISP's should qualify for /32s and become LIR's if
> they want the /32s and are allocating onwards.
>
> I would prefer therefore that as per global trends, AfriNIC allocates a set
> block out of which to assign /48 P.I prefix's (possibly a /30 or a /31), and
> assigns the /48s outta that prefix for all P.I space.  That block can then
> be made public, so that those of us that update filters to filter /48
> deaggregated announcements can add exceptions for the specified prefix.
>
> I would say that where companies have more than one physical location there
> could potentially be an exception to this policy, so that a company that has
> multiple physically diverse branches, might for example qualify for multiple
> /48s, purely for the purpose of better routing aggregation, but again, these
> /48s out of the same block referred to earlier.
>
> The above would be more in line with what is done globally, and would avoid
> the complications of BGP filters that were different for different regions!
>   
Whether a /32 or a /48 is allocated for PI should make little difference 
to International Routing Tables, in fact allocating a /32 would 
potentially reduce the number of entries - where an organisation finds a 
/48 "too small" (again - we were sort of taught that a /48 should be 
allocated per business location). By allocating a /32, you'll empower 
that organisation to become an LIR without any renumbering inconvenience 
- and have the simplicity that all allocations are then the same size - 
except for Exchange Points. I guess I'm more concerned with Router 
memory than attempting to waste IPV6 space?
I'm also more for separating those that will never need more space 
(IXP's) from those that probably will need more space (organisations 
with existing IPV4 PI space).
Allocating /32's has zero impact on different filters for different 
regions :-)
I'm all for the same size filters though (ie either /32's or /48's) ... 
I just think that if you are too big for a /48 - then you should go 
straight to a /32.

> Thanks
>
> Andrew Alston
> TENET - Chief Technology Officer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-wg-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:policy-wg-bounces at afrinic.net]
> On Behalf Of Mark J Elkins
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:41 PM
> To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List
> Subject: [policy-wg] IPV6 PI space
>
> Firstly - the training and knowledge received in Mauritius was great 
> with respect to IPV6. This has allowed me to better understand the needs 
> and concerns of others. However - I am by no means the expert and 
> expected to be corrected when incorrect.
>
> I believe there needs to be some sort of PI policy. I do not believe 
> that is is very healthy for Exchange Points (IXP's) to use the address 
> space of a particular ISP. I also believe that its unhealthy for some 
> organisations (eg - CCTLD's) that currently have IPV4 PI space and who 
> are Multi-Homed to also have space from any particular ISP.
>
> I believe that AfriNIC needs two different PI allocation policies for 
> these two different areas:
>
> For Exchange Points
> ---------------------------
>
> These need a small, non-wasteful, low maintenance allocation - for 
> example, an allocation of a /44 would allow for 16 "networks" (each of 
> /48) to be established. A /48 is more than suitable for a single (even 
> geographically dispersed) IXP, thus a /44 should be sufficient for a 
> country or a countries ISPA. (By this - I'm thinking of South Africa 
> with currently only one active peering point, but with potential 
> expansion to a total of three points - but all managed by a single ISPA 
> type organisation). 
> I'd like to see AfriNIC allocate these /44's out of a single /32, which 
> means there are 4096 of these allocations available. These should be 
> only used for IXP's and should (I'd like to suggest) have no 
> re-occurring charge associated with them.
> The allocation could be made to the ISPA type organisation - so that 
> there is no need for ongoing maintenance of the allocation (or at least 
> greatly reduce the maintenance burden on AfriNIC).
> I see this as promoting the use of IPV6 and also of IXP's (and ISPA's) 
> within the AfriNIC region.
> By allocating a /44, the Reverse DNS responsibilities (and hence - usage 
> of AfriNIC resources) is minimalised and filtering could also be done on 
> /44's. The allocations should be made on /40 boundaries so when there is 
> a need to allocate a particular country (or ISPA) with additional space, 
> to do so from the same /40. This allows for 256 different "countries".
> Technically - IXP allocations do not need to be globally route-able - so 
> this type of allocation should be fine.
> The other assumption here is that the IXP (or ISPA - whatever) is a 
> non-commercial (non-profit) organisation - in order to be exempt from 
> re-occurring fees.
> (By extension, maybe even allocate a /32 to AfrISPA - and let them 
> delegate onwards? - but I'm trying to not have options)
>
> For other existing holders of IPV4 PI Space
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> For all organisations that currently have IPV4 PI space within the 
> AfriNIC region, they should be allowed to obtain full /32's of IPV6 
> space. Prerequisites should be: Holding AfriNIC IPV4 PI space, an 
> AfriNIC ASN and Proof of Multi-Homing within the AfriNIC region - or 
> proof that it has been requested and is impending.
> (kiss - Keeping It Simple)
>
>
>
> No policy is exempt from changes in the future. The above policy 
> suggestions are to tackle todays requirements whilst keeping them 
> flexible enough that they may serve the AfriNIC regions needs for the 
> next few years.
>
>   


-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496