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

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

Andrew Alston aa at
Mon Feb 12 10:31:51 UTC 2007

Hi All,

Ok, I think with regards to the points below, I think it's important to
state the case from the other side of the fence.

I'm going to attempt to address each of the points mentioned below, as I
view things rather differently, and perhaps we can get more discussion
going about this, as I do think that more discussion is always

A.) Creation of swamp space

I strongly believe that P.I space needs to be allocated out of a fixed
single block, the size of that block is debatable, but by doing this we
avoid the creation of large segments of swamp space, it's a limited
block.  It also allows for the filtering of the smaller blocks from
outside of the P.I block, which keeps filtering manageable.  I don't
think that taking this method, the swamp space argument is really one of
concern in my mind.

B.) Routing table bloat

I've had this discussion with many people, in many parts of the world,
and come to the following conclusions:
1.) The routing table growth has never come close to keeping up the
increases in processing power and memory considerations of modern
routers, I'm not at all convinced that we need to worry about this in
terms of hardware.
2.) Due to the size of IPv6 blocks, even if we take into consideration
companies using multiple blocks for the sake of aggregation, the number
of P.I IPv6 blocks being announced by a single company should be
significantly less than the number of P.I IPv4 blocks, purely because a
company that gets a /48 today can expand hugely with that block, versus
a small company that gets a /24 today, and needs another /24 tomorrow,
purely because of the allocation policies today which require people to
justify the space they are applying for.

With these two considerations in mind, in my mind, I'm not convinced
this is a concern at all.

C.) Demand for IPv6 PI Space.

At the moment we cannot really evaluate this, as lets face it, there
isn't much demand for IPv6 at all yet.  As the need for redundancy, the
need for multi-homing, and the need for companies to be able to be more
mobile in their provider choices increases, this demand could very
easily become apparent.  At the moment due to the high costs of telecoms
on the African continent, how many companies can even afford to be
multi-homed or deploy that level of redundancy?  Perhaps as costs come
down, this would change?

D.) The RIR Revenue stream

First of all, it's my strong opinion that if an RIR has to resort to
denying a service to the public in order to grow its revenue, there is a
much larger problem than the problem of if the service should or
shouldn't be provided.  I believe that it is fundamentally flawed to
base the decision to allow or disallow P.I IPv6 space based on revenue.
Are there not enough problems in the African Internet community with
regards insanely high costs, without attempting to find reasons to force
ISP's who are already burdened with high costs to pay even more money?
Yes, I fully understand that an RIR must be financially viable, but I
really do not think that this decision should be based on the RIR's
economics.  After all, an RIR is a non-profit entity, and while it has
running costs, there is a difference between growing revenue to stay
sustainable and defining policies based on generation of funds at the
expense of the community for which the organization was created to

Just my thoughts

Andrew Alston
TENET - Chief Technology Officer

-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf
Of McTim
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re:
[resource-policy]AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent
(PI)Assignment forEnd-Sites

Hi Vincent,

Apologies for the delay, been ill.

On 2/9/07, Vincent Ngundi <vincent at> 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? ;-)


$ whois -h mctim
rpd mailing list
rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list