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

[Hisham R Rojoa]

Dear Colleagues

Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we have
had so far.

So far, we have the following arguments:
(a) Hytham El Nakhal 	(13.03.2007)
proposed that we should assign /48 blocks from a dedicated /32 and that
the PI for each country should be sequential (this would be achieved by
sharing the /48's within the /32 PI block to the ~55 countries in the
AfriNIC region)

(b) Andrew Alston 	(13.03.2007)
proposed that we assign /48's on /44 boundaries so that organisations
could grow. Also suggested that AfriNIC dedicates a /28 PI block on a
/26 boundary (a /26 would last longer).

This was supported by Gregory Massel and Andrew Alston (15.03.2007)

(c) Mark Elkins		(14.03.2007)
Suggested that we leave the job of determining allocations to the
registry, which is already doing a good job.

(d) Adiel Akplogan		(15.03.2007)
Clarified that the job of determing the mode of allocation of IP
resources was a purely administrative/business process issue and that it
was the role of the Registration Service to determine how best to manage
the space allocated to AfriNIC.

(e) Colin Alston		(15.03.2007)
suggested that the issue of reservation should be determined when the
assignment is being made and should be based on the intended use of the
block.

(f) Leo Vegoda		(16.03.2007)
Suggested that we consider the likely take-up of the "reserved space"
before hardening the policy.

(g) Vincent Ngundi		(16.03.2007)
posted Jordi's suggested amendments to the draft policy which included:

	* changing the word "end-user(s)" to "end-user-organisation(s)"

	* changing the assignment target from provides of "Public
Internet services" to providers of "services" thus;

	"End-sites which provide Public Internet services for a single
administrative organisations' network, regardless of their size."

	to

	"End-User-Organisations which provide services for a single
administrative organisations' 	network, regardless of their size."

	* There should be no need for assigning a prefix longer than
/48; thus a 	minimum assignment of a /48 or a shorter prefix if
AfriNIC deems there's 	justification.

(h) Alain Aina		(19.03.2007)
suggested that the name-change was unnecessary but suggested that we
change the draft to allow AfriNIC to determine the assignment. This was
supported by MArk J Elkins.

(i) Mark J Elkins		(19.03.2007)
supported the idea that PI should be allocated to organisations. This
was supported by Hytham El Nakhal (19.03.2007)

(j) Duncan Martin (19.03.2007) and Vincent Ngundi ()
argued that anyone could form an organisation if that was made a
condition. This was supported by Vincent Ngundi, Colin Alston and McTIm
(19.03.2007)

(k) Vincent Ngundi		(21.03.2007)
posted the revised draft policy incorporating the changes that members
had suggested which included:
* the new policy _doesn't define the size of the reserved block from
which the PI v6 assignments shall be made from.
* the new draft _doesn't allow the assignment of prefixes longer than
/48

(l) 22.03.2007
issues of routability, growth of the global routing table etc.. came up.
However, members agreed that there was need for PI v6 space.

Currently statistics:
* Yes (those in support of the policy)		:8
* No (those _not in support of the policy)		:1

Finally, we wish to encourage the community to actively participate to
the online discussions.
The next face to face policy meeting (during AfriNIC-6 in Abuja) is only
3 weeks away!"

Best Regards
Hisham