[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

[Alan Levin]

Vincent, many thanks for this.

btw, my name is Alan Levin, please don't confuse me with Andrew Alston.

Just for clarity, I am IN FAVOUR of ANY IPv6 PI policy.

I feel this process has dragged on far too long and I think it will  
be a horrible decision to postpone it any further.

The comment you placed below - under the name Alan Levin - was based  
on an email that relates to a compromise in order to get a policy,  
and not my true position.

Sincerely,

Alan



On 13 Mar 2007, at 3:51 PM, Vincent Ngundi wrote:

> 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

---------------------------------------------
Alan Levin
Tel: +27 21 409-7997