Search RPD Archives
otieno.barrack at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 07:14:14 UTC 2015
I support the proposal
On Jun 8, 2015 9:38 AM, "Abibu Ntahigiye" <abibu at tznic.or.tz> wrote:
> I do support the proposal as well.
> Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511
> On Jun 7, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Joe Kimaili wrote:
> I support this proposal
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
>> Hello colleagues,
>> We, the co-authors, hereby submit an update to AFPUB-2014-GEN-004
>> incorporating the few editorial changes as agreed in the AfriNIC
>> Public Policy Discussion and which were pre-condition to the consensus
>> The test follows below.
>> Nishal Goburdhan
>> Michuki Mwangi
>> Frank Habicht
>> Ref. Name: AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-03
>> Status: Last Call
>> Date: 03 June 2015
>> Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange, Michuki Mwangi, Internet
>> Society/KIXP, Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX
>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
>> AFRINIC has an existing policy to make IPv4 assignments to Critical
>> Infrastructure, but not one to specifically reserve Internet Number
>> Reources space for IXPs. As a result, it is anticipated that the
>> exhaustion of these resources could make it difficult, if not impossible
>> for IXPs to get sufficient resources to grow.
>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
>> This policy requests AFRINIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and
>> ASNs for use by IXPs only.
>> 3.0 Proposal
>> 3.1 Introduction
>> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of
>> the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa
>> is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time,
>> faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources.
>> Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start, new IXPs would create
>> unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected
>> networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope.
>> AFRINIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs ,
>> but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that
>> there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally,
>> this policy reserves a set of ASNs between 0 - 65535 for use by IXPs,
>> for IXP BGP Route Servers.
>> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks
>> We distinguish between two kinds of IP number resources needed and used
>> at IXPs.
>> An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP
>> would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each
>> peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared
>> peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN not being
>> visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to
>> reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP.
>> >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it
>> is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a
>> contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that
>> the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring,
>> statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots,
>> etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for
>> instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network
>> infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects.
>> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use
>> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions
>> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing
>> policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B,
>> where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN.
>> Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community
>> attribute. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route
>> server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community
>> mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is
>> likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are
>> allocated through the current AFRINIC process.
>> If IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN
>> (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it
>> follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than occupying
>> more than 2 bytes.
>> 3.4 Proposal
>> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this
>> policy proposes that AFRINIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs
>> out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP
>> peering LAN use.
>> Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block,
>> published as such by AFRINIC. The Peering LAN assignments for each IXP
>> should ensure that the adjacent /24 IP block is reserved (based on the
>> minimum end-user assignment policy size of /24) to support future growth
>> of the IXP. This will enable an IXP to increase its peering LAN
>> resources to /23 without having to renumber to a new contiguous IP block
>> Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the
>> same block as the IXP peering LANs.
>> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for
>> IXP peering LANs in the AFRINIC service region, and that AFRINIC publish
>> this block as such. In addition, the assignments for the IXP peering LAN
>> should reserve the adjacent contiguous /24 IP block to the requesting
>> IXP for future growth. These reservations shall be upheld until such a
>> time that the available pool of the /16 can no longer allocate /23
>> assignments. Thereafter, new requests may be assigned from the reserved
>> space held for future IXP growth.
>> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16
>> block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs.
>> It is proposed that AFRINIC reserves a block of ASNs between 0 - 65535
>> for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AFRINIC service region. The
>> number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of
>> the remaining ASNs between 0 - 65535 within AFRINIC's block at the date
>> of ratification of this policy. AFRINIC will allocate these resources
>> on a first come first served basis.
>> 3.5 Evaluation criteria
>> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines
>> a valid IXP.
>> 4. Revision History
>> 23 Oct 2014 AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-01 posted on rpd list.
>> 05 Nov 2014 AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-02 posted on rpd list.
>>  AFRINIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001,
>> Sections 5) and 6)
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> Joe Kimaili
> Ubuntunet Alliance
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD