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

Wed Mar 14 09:05:08 UTC 2007

Hi Vincent,

Thank you ,

>>(b) On the other hand, we need to consider the needs/demand for IP from the different countries in >>the AfriNIC region; it's not proportionate.

Sure it's not proportionate so that I said >> "if" we divide PI blocks equally.. I agree with you & George Ezzat for that some countries will need more PI than others but in worst case if we divide it equally each country I think will have enough PI keeping in mind your comment point >> (c) It's however worth noting that end-users with a high demand (>> /48) for v6 space can always become an LIR or acquire the same from an LIR. Let's not forget that the primary objective of this policy is to provide PI v6 for critical infrastructure providers.

So, as you said let's wait and see group replies.

Best Regards,

Haitham...

________________________________

From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net on behalf of Vincent Ngundi
Sent: Wed 3/14/2007 9:10 AM
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Hi Hytham,

Thanks for your comment/input.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:

>
> 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.
This is a very nice suggestion.

(a) IMHO, though a /32 is not as large a space as the numbers may 
insinuate, with proper usage of assigned /48 prefixes, we can greatly 
minimise the need for preserving a /32 for every /48 assigned.

(b) On the other hand, we need to consider the needs/demand for IP 
from the different countries in the AfriNIC region; it's not 
proportionate.

(c) It's however worth noting that end-users with a high demand (>> /
48) for v6 space can always become an LIR or acquire the same from an 
LIR. Let's not forget that the primary objective of this policy is to 
provide PI v6 for critical infrastructure providers.

Let's see what others have to say about this.

-v

>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

_______________________________________________
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/20070314/72db388a/attachment.html>