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

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

Andrew Alston aa at
Wed Mar 14 17:10:35 UTC 2007

Hi Jordi,

I'm actually really really against coming up with ANOTHER proposal.  With
the urgency involved in getting action on this policy (considering that we
have been debating this since mid 2005), another proposal will mean that yet
again there will be no vote and no action in Nigeria in a few weeks.
Please, lets hammer out with what we have and see if we can find an
agreement that can be voted on and either outright rejected or passed at the
next meeting!



-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:34 PM
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:
IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Hi Vincent, all,

I was considering withdrawing my PI proposal and instead agree with you in a
common text among us, in order to push for a single proposal with may be
easier, hopefully, to adopt by everybody. However, I think there are some
points that could make this not feasible.

Basically, in my proposal, people was concerned about:

1) Making it temporary (so I'm happy to remove that, as clearly all the
policies are somehow subjected to a change).

2) Using a /48 as a starting point (but not a longer prefix), instead of
/32. Basically my idea is to allow the hostmaster to decide if the requester
can work with a /48 (example an IXP), may be others if there are no
filtering problems, but allow them to allocate a /32 if needed (or anything
in the middle (hopefully not !)), for example if there are filtering

But your proposal seems to be targeted ONLY to critical infrastructures (so
the tittle of the proposal should be also modified if I'm correct), and
that's wrong if you consider as critical infrastructures ONLY IXPs, TLDs,
etc. What about a data center or any enterprise with may be (or not)
multihomed ?

Remember that those entities CANN't become an LIR (I think your point c
below is wrong on this), because they do not provide services to external
customers (other entities).

So if you agree in "re-orienting" your proposal (I can work tonight on your
text to provide you a draft and agree among us before sending to the list),
in order to cover all PI cases, and not just critical infrastructures, then
I guess we can make a better job instead of having two "competing"

What do you think ?


> De: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at>
> Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
> Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:10:20 +0300
> Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
> Asunto: 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 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
>> <winmail.dat>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

rpd mailing list
rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list