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

Wed Mar 14 18:39:34 UTC 2007

Mark Hi,

It's long time since I hear from you .. I hope you be fine.

>>All countries proportional?? not really - Swaziland will never need as
many PI allocations as South Africa. Having said that - is it not the job of the Registry to work out these
finer points? They are doing a reasonable job so far.

First, may be I didn't clarify it well or said it in a wrong way. anyway I'm agree with you, George, and Vincent that not all countries are the same regarding their needs of PI.
and for the serial PI blocks reservation for each country (it's not a must of course, it just preferable), I think AfriNIC technical team can find an easily suitable way to do that based on IPv4 PI statistics as Vincent mentioned in his last mail.

> (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.
>
>No they can't become an LIR - not with the current IPv6 LIR policy.....
>To become an LIR - you have to have customers you can sub-allocate to.
>UniForum SA applied to become an LIR in order to get IPv6 address space
>and was refused because they do not intend to do any sub-allocations to
>other people/organisations.

Second, I think I have to clarify how I understand two words here 'high' and 'or' when I read Vincent mail ... If an end-user has customers and he expects to have for example more than 200 /48 blocks ('high demand') so it can become an LIR.  ('or') if he don't has customers and has a high demand of PI blocks he can get it from an LIR. And if he don't has high demand he can get one, two, or three PI blocks direct from AfriNIC.

>>Is this policy for use only by Critical Infrastructure providers?
>>Who defines what this means?

>>If its "self-defining" ie - The Organisation multi-homes already with
>>IPv4 space and plans to do the same with IPv6 space - then I'm happy
>>with the wording "critical infrastructure" but not with "provider".

>>A number of the banks in South Africa do multi-home - I see no reason
>>not to allow them to be allocated PI IPv6 address space. There is a good
>>chance that a /48 would not be enough space - but how could they ever
>>become an LIR? - doesn't sound right. Sure - they could "allocate to
>>their branches" - but thats watering down what I see an LIR as being.

Third, I'm with you regarding the word 'providers' , I think it could be 'operators' for example.
And for the Bank example, we have the "National Bank" here in Egypt with more than 200 branches connected via VPN with secured (multi-home + firewall) exit to Internet . If we assume that each branch has 200 IP nodes and in worst case each branch needs its own IP network. So we need 200 IP networks which /48 can be divided into more than 200 networks and each network has more than 200 IP nodes. We couldn't take this example as a standard, I know well it's case by case.
I'm still believe that an end user using IPv6 PI block and make a good IP resource planning will not become a 'high demand' end user

Last, Mark I'm looking forward to see you in AfriNIC-6 or in Convergence conference in Egypt at the end of this month... http://www.tra.gov.eg/convergence/

Thanks,
Haitham..

________________________________

From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net on behalf of Mark J Elkins
Sent: Wed 3/14/2007 5:57 PM
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNICPolicy Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
> 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.
>
All countries proportional?? not really - Swaziland will never need as
many PI allocations as South Africa.
Having said that - is it not the job of the Registry to work out these
finer points? They are doing a reasonable job so far.

>
> 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.
>
No they can't become an LIR - not with the current IPv6 LIR policy.....
To become an LIR - you have to have customers you can sub-allocate to.
UniForum SA applied to become an LIR in order to get IPv6 address space
and was refused because they do not intend to do any sub-allocations to
other people/organisations.

If an organisation starts out getting PI space - why would they then
continue and get more (different) space from an LIR?

Is this policy for use only by Critical Infrastructure providers?
Who defines what this means?

If its "self-defining" ie - The Organisation multi-homes already with
IPv4 space and plans to do the same with IPv6 space - then I'm happy
with the wording "critical infrastructure" but not with "provider".

A number of the banks in South Africa do multi-home - I see no reason
not to allow them to be allocated PI IPv6 address space. There is a good
chance that a /48 would not be enough space - but how could they ever
become an LIR? - doesn't sound right. Sure - they could "allocate to
their branches" - but thats watering down what I see an LIR as being.

Sorry - not trying to pick on or offend anyone.... :-)

>
> Let's see what others have to say about this.
>
:-)

--
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11585 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20070314/cf1f27e8/attachment.bin>