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

Mark J Elkins mje at
Thu Mar 15 17:05:40 UTC 2007

Andrew Alston wrote:
>>> 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)

As AfriNIC already puts /32's on reasonable growth boundaries - why 
should we not expect them to do the same with /48 assignments?  (I guess 
its fair to make a strong suggestion though)

Look at the bottom of - the 
allocs look like..


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list