[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Tue Mar 13 16:55:05 UTC 2007

Dear Vincent,

I'd like to discuss something may be get benefits of all suggestions regarding PI assignment, What about dedicating a /32 for PI assignments, and each PI is /48 , so we have 2 to the power 16 PI assignments (i.e. 65536 /48 PI blocks). AfriNIC provide services for Africa Continent which contains about 55 countries. So if we divide PI blocks equally over countries we find that each country will have more than 1190 PI blocks, "Is it enough for each country" ? to know the answer we can have a look on the number of IPv4 PI assignments for each country in database (keeping in mind that /48 IPv6 block has addresses more more than /24 IPv4). 

Then we can make all /48 PI assignments from a dedicated /32 block and in same time we can arrange for a serial /48 blocks for each country and inside each country we can keep a guard band for each PI assignment in case of future growth. 

Thanks,

Haitham..

________________________________

From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net on behalf of Vincent Ngundi
Sent: Tue 3/13/2007 3:51 PM
To: Resource Policy Discussion List
Cc: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Hi All, 

Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we have had so far.

So far, we have the following arguments:

(a) Andrew Levin  (30.01.2007)
proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns about the global routing table

(b) Frank Habitcht  (30.01.2007)
was in agreement that there was need for PI assignments < /48 especially in the case of IXP's since the prefix would not appear in the global routing table.

(c) Mark Elkins (01.02.2007)
Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique /32 (which should be preserved to accommodate  growth)

>From the above points:

(b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.

as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become an LIR.

In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it is.

Currently statistics:

* Yea (those in support of the policy) : 6
* Nay (those _not in support of the policy) : 1

Finally, I wish to encourage more members of the community to give their views on this policy, or at least indicate whether they are in favour of it or not.

Abuja is only 5 weeks away!

-v

On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:

	Hi Vincent,

	I'm ok with all of this except for the following:

	* The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can justify it.

	I'm happy with /48s, I'm even happier with bigger blocks, but there should *NEVER* be a situation where the block is smaller than this in the global routing tables.  If the blocks can ever be smaller than /48 in size it is going to create major BGP filtering headaches.

	Can this wording be clarified?

	Many Thanks

	Andrew Alston

	TENET - Chief Technology Officer

	_______________________________________________
	resource-policy mailing list
	resource-policy at afrinic.net
	https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 8247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20070313/a9ce7dbe/attachment.bin>