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

Thu Mar 15 08:47:17 UTC 2007

Hi Jordi,

On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> What I'm precisely saying is that instead of having two proposals,  
> we should
> withdraw one of them (and I offered to do so with the one I  
> submitted, even
> if that one was there before) and try to combine the inputs in just  
> one. But
> of course, this will work only if Vincent agree in my comments  
> (which I
> think are reflecting the discussions/inputs received since long  
> time ago for
> BOTH proposals).
I agree and we are working on it.

-v
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>> De: Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za>
>> Responder a: <aa at tenet.ac.za>
>> Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:10:35 +0200
>> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, 'AfriNIC Resource Policy  
>> Discussion List'
>> <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> Asunto: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy  
>> Proposal:
>> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On  
>> Behalf Of
>> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> 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
>> problems.
>>
>> 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"
>> proposals.
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> De: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke>
>>> Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List  
>>> <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:10:20 +0300
>>> Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>>
>> 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 afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
>
> 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 afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>