Search RPD Archives
[afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment forEnd-Sites
aa at tenet.ac.za
Fri Feb 2 12:10:36 UTC 2007
I support Vincent's policy.
In regards to the questions about /48s on /32 boundaries, this will only
work if there is a very large block allocated for the /32 boundary based
blocks. Many people filter /48s in the routing table that are not
allocated out of specific RIR blocks reserved for P.I space, now, if
AfriNIC is allocating P.I on /32 boundaries, this block is going to need
to be sized such that you can allocate a large number of P.I blocks on
said boundaries, and at this point I become worried about wasting space
(you're looking at reserving probably a /16 for P.I if you want to be
able to expand to 2^16 /48 P.I blocks, and a /16 is a vast amount of
space to reserve for an actual space allocation of /32!)
Just my thoughts
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf
Of Vincent Ngundi
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:52 PM
To: Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re: [resource-policy]
AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment
On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark J Elkins wrote:
> OPPS - In my posting - I see a mistake....
> Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
>>> I support the policy. One bit thats not clear, is each /48
>>> assignment in its own unique /32 or are all /48's in a single
>>> (for now)
>>> /32 ?
>>> In RIPE, many IXP's are in the same 2001:7f8::/32 space,
>>> ie DE-CIX = 2001:7f8:0::/48 (They were first so have the slightly
>>> confusing look of being a /32)
>>> LIPEX = 2001:7f8:5::/48
>>> This would appear to be a good thing to do - ISP's should never need
> The line above should have IXP - not
>>> more space than a /48....
>>> However, for companies of unknown size and growth that request PI
>>> - it might be more appropriate to put them in their own unique /
>>> 32. I,
>>> however, see no reason not to make these /32's allocated back-to-
>>> (numerically consecutive).
>> if a PI request qualify for /32, it should be assigned from LIR
> The assumption above is that a company of unknown growth potential
> who asks for PI space of size /48 should be allocated a /48 - in a
> unique /32 - which could be in an area where /32's are allocated
> back to back. On the other hand - AfriNIC currently has so much
> IPv6 space - maybe this really does not matter???
> My point is that I believe its safe to separate known small (/48)
> allocations (ie - for IXP's) and take them from a single /32 - and
> treat them separately from other organisations asking for /48's who
> have unknown potential growth.
* IMHO, a /48 is a lot of space. No??
* As for how the assignment will be done, I think we should leave
that to AfriNIC.
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> . . ___. .__ 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
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD