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

Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda at
Fri Mar 16 08:25:24 UTC 2007


On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:


> 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)

I think the fairness argument is very important. However, I am not  
sure I understand what take-up you expect for the reserved space and  
that means I can't work out what proportion of the space you'd like  
reserved is ever likely to be used. What proportion is likely to be  

One /48 gives an end-site -- not an ISP which would qualify for a /32  
anyway -- 65536 /64 networks. The majority of those assignments will  
need to be used before the end-site needs to expand its prefix from  
a /48 to a /47. What I really don't have a feel for is how many  
organisations are likely to grow out of a /48 at a single site. I can  
easily understand a single organisation wanting a separate /48 for  
separate sites in separate cities or countries - but how many are  
going to require that level of growth in single locations? Further,  
how many sites are really likely to grow 16-fold at a single location?

I think it's worth looking at the likely take-up of the reserved  
spacve before hardening the policy.


Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison

More information about the RPD mailing list