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

[Vincent Ngundi]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your comments/input.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:

> As I’ve stated in previous emails, I still believe that we should  
> probably stay in line with what the other regions are doing here in  
> order to avoid complications and different filtering systems  
> globally to make the P.I space work.
>
>
>
> That is, a single block out of which allocations of /48 are made as  
> a minimum.  That way, a single prefix list could be applied on an  
> ISP’s bgp peers that basically says (cisco syntax here, though its  
> simply an illustration of principle)
I agree with you.
>
>
> Permit aaaa:aaaa::/yy le 48
>
> permit xxxx:xxxx::/yy le 48
>
> permit zzzz:zzzz::/yy le 48
>
> permit ::/0 le 32
>
>
>
> Where A X and Z are the pre-defined P.I blocks from the various  
> regions, everything else that’s in the tables that smaller in size  
> than a /32 gets dumped.
>
>
>
> If we then decide to allocate these /48s on /44 boundaries so that  
> organizations can grow (/44 being what I would consider a  
> reasonable boundary for growth of individual companies) it would  
> allow for companies to grow and add more /48s without growing the  
> routing table because the blocks would be contiguous. If AfriNIC  
> were to allocate a /28 for this purpose it allows for 2^16 (65536)  
> P.I /44 blocks, which should last a fairly long time, and if it  
> becomes necessary to grow this, its just a matter of adding  
> another /28 prefix to the prefix list to expand the P.I space.  We  
> could even allocate that /28 on a /26 boundary for safety!
If we take this approach, we may end up with a lot of wasted  
(unallocatable) space. For instance, how many organisations may  
expand such that they require an additional /48 (I'm being realistic  
here, not pessimistic)

IMHO, I think a /48 = ( 2^16 (65536) /64's) from a reserved /32 will  
do unless we intend to silently get rid of the IPv6 Allocation Policy.

-v
>
>
> This at the end of the day covers most of the aspects,
>
>
>
> A.)   It provides P.I space (which there seems to be consensus on  
> from what I’m reading)
>
> B.)    It provides enough space that the blocks can be expanded for  
> institutions who have P.I space up to a /44, which, providing  
> institutions are using a /48 per physical site would give them up  
> to 16 physical sites (as an example, they could break /48s across  
> multiple physical sites as well)
>
> C.)    It provides enough space for the allocations of these P.I  
> blocks without needing extensive filter lists on routers for the  
> P.I prefix blocks and allows for the differentiation of P.I blocks  
> versus P.A blocks by simply looking at the block the space was  
> assigned out of. (This becomes even more obvious an advantage if  
> the P.I allocation block is initially published on a /28 boundary  
> but with a /26 reserved by AfriNIC incase of need)
>
> D.)   In the case of point B.) due to the fact that sites can grow  
> their blocks on a contiguous basis, it prevents massive growth in  
> the routing table
>
>
>
> Just my thoughts, curious to hear what the disagreements with this  
> are.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew Alston
>
> TENET – Chief Technology Officer
>
>
>
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On  
> Behalf Of Hytham EL Nakhal
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:55 PM
> To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> Subject: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy  
> Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20070314/19120199/attachment.html>