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

[rpd] Comments on AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Fri Apr 27 11:21:33 UTC 2018

Hi Jordi,

I read AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01.  I would like to thank you for 
proposing an update to the existing IPv6 policy as there has been 
changes from the SDO since the policy was written.

The existing policy states that the RIR "is not concerned about which 
address size an LIR actually assigns".  This proposal changes that as 
it has 'End sites or users must be assigned a prefix that is a 
multiple of "n" /64's which must be enough to meet their current and 
planned needs ...'  Does that make the IPv6 policy one which is based 
on a "needs-basis" for a small [1] service provider?

The proposed change in "6.8" sets a requirement where IPv6 PI space 
is dependent upon qualification for IPv4 PI space.  What is the 
rationale for keeping the dependency?

S. Moonesamy

1. The word "small" is relative.

More information about the RPD mailing list