[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - “IPv6 Policy and References Update (AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01)"

Fri Mar 16 16:53:19 UTC 2018

Hi Owen, all,

Once more thanks for the input.

Regarding the multiple /48 per end-site, I fully agree with your considerations, however, those cases are so rare, at least for the time being, that I don't see "how the RIR" will be able to evaluate that need (if there is no specific policy text for that). And because they are rare, I think it is easier, at the time being, to not force this escalation.

Anyway, I'm happy to adapt that text once we see more inputs and submit a new version ahead of the Dakar meeting.

I've submitted most of the policies, just waiting for "publication", but I'm happy to consider your suggestion, as I move to new versions, about the nibble boundaries, I think it make a lot of sense.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Fecha: viernes, 16 de marzo de 2018, 17:09
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Asunto: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - “IPv6  Policy and References Update (AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01)"

    > On Mar 16, 2018, at 01:43 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi all,
    > 
    > I think the proposed changes are very straightforward and easy to understand, but in any case, of course, I'm happy to explain them if needed and contribute to clarify any issues.
    > 
    > In order to summarize the proposed changes, the basic idea is:
    > 
    > 1) Use more updated references to newer community documents (RFC6177 and RIPE690)
    > 
    > 2) Clarify the "utilisation" term regarding IPv6
    > 
    > 3) In my opinion, there is no need to justify at the RIR level if a site needs more than one /48 (example an enterprise, a university, etc.). Even if is something that may not be frequent (very few customers will need that), it doesn't make sense to escalate to AfriNIC. This has been done already in other RIRs long time ago.

    Actually, at least in ARIN, we took a slightly different approach.

    If a single end-site needs more than a /48, that does make sense to escalate to the RIR and is required.

    However, a single site s defined as a single building or structure or a single tenant in a multi-tenant building or structure.

    Thus, most enterprises that would need more than a /48 would qualify for a /48 per building, office, remote worker, or other end-site location. Most Universities could actually justify a /48 per student per dorm room (as each of them is technically a tenant in a multi-tenant building or structure) in addition to (e.g.) one per classroom or at least one per campus building.

    In this way, the multiple end-sites per organization can each get /48s without escalation to the RIR, but exceptional cases where one such end site actually requires more than 65,536 /64s (actually anything over about 48,000 will qualify under ARIN policy), the policy does require justification.

    > 4) Some text in the IPv6 PI is redundant and contradictory, I guess it was taken from the justification of the IPv6 PI policy proposal, but was not meant to be part of the policy text.
    > 
    > I've submitted also a very similar proposal to LACNIC and working in reviewing similar issues in other RIRs, so I plan to submit related proposals if needed.

    May I suggest that as you move forward with these you seriously consider the nibble-boundary round-up based policy present in the ARIN region. I believe this model has proved itself quite functional within the ARIN region and has made IPv6 much easier
    to acquire and implement at enterprise and service provider scales.

    Owen

    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > 
    > 
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
    > Fecha: jueves, 15 de marzo de 2018, 23:04
    > Para: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
    > Asunto: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - “IPv6 Policy and References Update (AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01)"
    > 
    >    Good day AFRINIC PDWG Members,
    > 
    >    We have received a new policy proposal as follows.
    > 
    >    Proposal: IPv6 Policy and References Update
    >    ID: AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01
    >    Author: Jordi Palet Martinez | jordi.palet[at]theipv6company.com  
    > 
    >    The proposal contents are published at https://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2313-ipv6-policy-and-references-update
    > 
    >    Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and provide your feedback.
    > 
    >    Thank you.
    > 
    >    PDWG Co-chairs
    > 
    >    _______________________________________________
    >    RPD mailing list
    >    RPD at afrinic.net
    >    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.consulintel.es
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > RPD mailing list
    > RPD at afrinic.net
    > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.