Search RPD Archives
[afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment forEnd-Sites
vincent at kenic.or.ke
Thu Feb 8 14:03:17 UTC 2007
It would be a very good idea if more members of the community
commented on this policy. This way, we will all have an idea of what
the community needs and whether we need to make changes to the policy
before we can present it to the board for ratification in April.
There are members who have greatly contributed to the other similar
policies and I'm hoping that they'll also comment on this policy in
For those who have already commented, thank you, and I guess the
community is open to more ideas and suggestions on the same.
On Feb 2, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi All,
> I support Vincent's policy.
> In regards to the questions about /48s on /32 boundaries, this will
> work if there is a very large block allocated for the /32 boundary
> 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
> 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
> (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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On
> 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
>> 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
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD