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

[McTim]

On 3/22/07, Mark J Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
> McTim - what then are you suggesting? .. to never have PI IPv6 in the
> AfriNIC region?

I would prefer not to break aggregation in any region.

>
> I believe that some organisations truly need PI IPv6 address space.

I believe that some organisations truly need IPv6 address space.
I think they should use PA space.  Ppl multihome with PA space in v4
world, and they can with v6.

> I don't think its down to us to discuss pricing -

You are right this is a BoT decision.  If I were on the Board I would
suggest that a PI end-user be charged a fee between 50-100 of the LIR
fee.  After all it's the same amount of work to allocate as to assign.
 Since PI blocks can't be sub-assigned, an organization needing more
than one PI block might as well become an LIR.  So in your case, POSIX
needs one and UniForum needs one, they can't share the same PI block.

but I'd have to agree
> with you - if the price was high enough
> only those that really need would apply - as long as its world
> route-able

RIR's do not guarantee routability, they can't. You pay your money and
take your chance.

(thus filling up routing tables around the world).
>
> >From a "Routing Table" point of view - this is one reason why I liked
> the idea of providing back-to-back /48 allocations for the likes of
> IXP's - addresses that would not need to be routed around the world...
> separate from organisations that really do need world route-able addresses.

I am happy to have a /48 per IXP from a single /32. Folk can then
filter this prefix.  I'd even be happy if the NIC waived all fees for
IXP /48 in perpetuity.  This would be a separate policy.

>
> The folk at AfriNIC can allocate addresses from appropriate blocks
> according to the needs of the clients - they could even have a two tier
> price - low price for world-non-routable, high price for world-routable.

AfriNIC hostmasters will assign PI blocks if this policy passes. LIR's
get an allocation.


>
> In the mean time....
> a) We still need a PI IPv6 policy though.
> b) The "routing table" problem will be solved - the AfriNIC negative
> (as in growth of the table size) contribution will be negligible.

I'm still not buying a or b, tho I agree that (in the short term)
African organisations won't be advertising /48's as much as the ARIN
folk.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim