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

[policy-wg] IPV6 PI space

Andrew Alston aa at
Thu Dec 14 16:06:46 UTC 2006

This is possible, but at the same time it has a huge drawback.  If you
reserve a /32 for each block you have to drastically increase the size of
the base block the allocations are coming from in order for people to do
filter adjustments to allow the /48s through from a specific prefix range.

(For example, if you were doing /48s outta a /30 prefix you could have a
single filter for the /30, in the scenario suggested below you would need a
block of /16 in order to assign 65536 blocks of PI space, and considering
that each RIR is allocated v6 blocks from ICANN in blocks of /12 (as far as
I know, I'm open to correction on this), that's 1/16th of the total space in
reserve to allocate /48s, with the potential to expand)

At the same time, maybe a /16 reservation with /48s on /32 boundaries is a
good idea, because it does allow for increases in P.I space within the same
block that are contiguous, meaning that the routing tables wouldn't grow
upon the allocation of more space, the size of the announcements would just
grow.  I guess it depends, would AfriNIC be prepared to allocate a /16 of
their assigned /12 to this purpose?


Andrew Alston
TENET - Chief Technology Officer

-----Original Message-----
From: policy-wg-bounces at [mailto:policy-wg-bounces at]
On Behalf Of Vincent Ngundi
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:25 PM
To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List
Subject: Re: [policy-wg] IPV6 PI space

How about we assign a _minumum of a /48 (those who need more will have to 
justify that to AfriNIC) to end users and critical infrastructure providers 
and reserve a /32 for each assigned /48?



On Thu December 14 2006 16:34, 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
> 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.
> 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
> requirements.
> 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
> end point network, a /48 should be more than sufficient for P.I
> to individual companies.  ISP's should qualify for /32s and become LIR's
> they want the /32s and are allocating onwards.
> I would prefer therefore that as per global trends, AfriNIC allocates a
> 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
> 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
> the complications of BGP filters that were different for different
> Thanks
> Andrew Alston
> TENET - Chief Technology Officer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-wg-bounces at [mailto:policy-wg-bounces at]
> 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.

$ whois -h VIN1-AfriNIC
policy-wg mailing list
policy-wg at

More information about the RPD mailing list