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

[Andrew Alston]

>> As for slack space for growing a range, this is a difficult issue  
>> but I think it is one which is a matter of assignment logistics and  
>> not assignment policy.
>> Perhaps the provision of a /44 per /48 should be determined by the  
>> intended use of the block.
> I agree with you and I think we should leave this to the RIR  
> (AfriNIC) to determine when making the assignment.

I have to respectfully (strongly) disagree with this.  Unless there is a
strong policy about the boundaries and boundaries are fixed, it leaves the
door open to chaos (and while I am a great fan of a chaotic open internet,
there are limits).

The drawbacks I see are as follows:

a.) The entire reason for the boundary is to allow for growth, ANY
organization should be allowed to grow, and as far as I know, and as far as
I know AfriNIC does not employ psychics, if this boundary is non-static,
mistakes are bound to happen, people will get blocks that cannot grow, and
once again, the routing table starts to grow!
b.) The idea of a /44 boundary levels the playing field, everyone is
entitled to the same initial, everyone is entitled to grow, let's not allow
some who know how to work the system to end up with more than those that
don't, because I see this as a real danger unless there are fixed policies.
(look at the situation with v4 at the moment, and while I won't go into what
I mean by working the system, a little analysis and some thought should
clear up what I mean)
c.) We need some uniformity in what we do in regards to what the other RIR's
are doing, and the /44 boundary I might add is already in policy in at least
one other region (ARIN)

I'm extremely happy to see this level of debate on this policy, and I really
want to see something done by Nigeria, but at the same time I don't want to
see a policy that makes the mistake of having a policy that is to brief, as
that can be almost as dangerous as one that is too restrictive.

So as stated for the record, (and copy and pasted from Greg's email, thanks
for the wording):

"Regarding the policy ("IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for
End-Sites"), I would strongly urge that section 3 be amended in accordance
with Andrew's suggestions of /48's assigned on /44 boundaries out of a
reserved block of at least /28. Otherwise it is an excellent proposal."

Thanks

Andrew Alston
TENET - Chief Technology Officer