Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central

Tue Apr 3 18:00:47 UTC 2007

Hi Alain,

To make it short:

1) The draft introduces the concept and one way to manage this, however, in
section 7.0, IANA considerations, is already indicated "... If deemed
appropriate, the authority may also consist of multiple organizations
performing the allocation authority duties".

2) Even if only L=1 is defined, the entire block is on IANA hands, as it is
a /7, not /8.

3) The definition of L=0 is done by this document. We just need to move it
forward again, which as said before, can be done in parallel with the PDP in
the RIRs. I don't think there is any rule that says "must be done in serial
mode" and if this helps to win time, why not ?


> De: Alain Patrick AINA <aalain at>
> Organización: technologies réseaux et Solutions (
> Responder a: <aalain at>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> <rpd at>
> Fecha: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:07:20 +0000
> Para: <rpd at>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
>> The proposal suggest that this (AfriNIC) RIR do it for this region, and the
>> same for each one of the other RIRs.
> ack.
>> I guess it may happen that the NRO could decide, if the proposal goes thru
>> all the regions to implement a central registry instead of 5 "distributed"
>> central registries for this purpose,
> The draft proposes a unique central authority, which differs from your
> proposal.
>> but I guess this is out of the scope
>> of the proposal, and could be a "next step". I'm not sure if this could
>> work, but I can imagine that if we reach consensus in every region, it may
>> made sense to have a single registry, if it reduces the cost, and this
>> being funded by the NRO common funds.
>> I believe there has not been a similar case before.
>> Anyway, as said, the proposal here is to talk about the *AfriNIC* scope, at
>> least at this stage.
>> The draft is expired, but as you know can be revived at any time, just with
>> a new submission. The goal is to do so, in parallel with the advancement of
>> the PDP in the different regions. The important think here is also to
>> realize that the space is already allocated to IANA by RFC4193.
> RFC4193 only defines L=1
> IETF does not define yet L=0,  and i guess we need L=0 defines before we move
> forward. 
> --alain
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the RPD mailing list