[policy-wg] IPV6 PI space

[Vincent Ngundi]

On Thu December 14 2006 22:52, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>       On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andrew Alston wrote:
>     > 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.
>
> While the peering would be directly across the /48 or /64, rather than
> across a bunch of point-to-points (which, if needed, would be supplied by
> the peers, rather than the IXP, if done following the practices used in
> the rest of the world), I can verify Andrew's assertion that a /64 is
> what an IXP needs.  A /48 is, therefore, also sufficient.  And for the
> sake of simplicity, I'd strongly recommend just making all v6 PI
> allocations be /48s, period.
>
I agree though we should also consider the need for additional assignments 
(within the same block) thus the need to reserve a /32.

>     > 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.
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
Which approach are we taking here while coming up with a solution:

Is it:
(a) looking at what other RIR's are doing
(b) considering the needs of the AfriNIC community
(c) both

Regards,

-V

>     > 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.
>
> This is incorrect.  An IXP, by definition, is a single subnet, across
> which all participants can reach each other.  Therefore, it need never be
> more than a single /64.  A /44 is wasteful, since only 1/2^20 of it, or
> 0.00009% could ever be assigned.  And bear in mind that even then, the
> largest exchange points the world has ever known have had fewer than 500
> participants, so in terms of actual IP addresses used, as opposed to
> subnets assigned, at _best_, that would be 0.00000000000000000000005%
> utilization.  Again, not very efficient.  I don't think you need to be
> worrying about giving IXPs room to grow.  They have plenty.
>
>     > A /48 is more than suitable for a single (even geographically
>     > dispersed) IXP
>
> There's no such thing, again by definition.
>
>     > a /44 should be sufficient for a country or a countries ISPA.
>
> Since no routing aggregation is possible, there's no benefit to assigning
> IXP subnets for a country in a nominally-aggregatable manner, and this is
> a false economy, resulting in additional wasted space.  And there's no
> inherent connection between IXPs and ISPAs; in fact, exactly the opposite.
> The connection in South Africa is a fluke which the market hasn't yet
> corrected because there aren't sufficient market forces at work there.
>
> So, briefly, what you could do, which is what's working elsewhere, is to
> stick to the basis of what Andrew is suggesting: make all PI allocations
> /48s, and leave it at that.  Nice and simple.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> policy-wg mailing list
> policy-wg at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg

-- 
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net VIN1-AfriNIC