[afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment forEnd-Sites

[McTim]

Hi Vincent,

Apologies for the delay, been ill.

On 2/9/07, Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke> wrote:
> > I guess I am not convinced that we need a PI policy for v6, except
> > perhaps in the
> > corner case of IXP's.
> It would be nice if you could give reasons why you think the IPv6 PI
> policy (afpol-v6200701) is unnecessary, then the community would
> deduce whether there's a valid argument or not.

Sure, here are some reasons;
creation of swamp space, routing table bloat, lack of demand (@ the
NBO meeting, only one person suggested they would like PI IIRC, and
even that one suggested he had no immediate plan for immediate
implementation), breaking of aggregation (IETF v6 design focus was
more on aggregation than conservation)

Finally, I am convinced that there are large numbers of ISPs in Africa
who have not yet become LIRs.  For them, getting some v6 PI space may
be much cheaper than becoming a LIR, in which case, annual revenue for
the NIC wouldn't grow as fast as it has for other RIRs.

I'll be in NBO from the 16th to the 24th, perhaps we can get a few
folk together to discuss it over a frosty malt beverage? ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim