Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Comments on AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01
aleruchichuku at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 27 19:59:52 UTC 2018
I will like to join Moonesamy in appreciating your proposal for an update to the current IPV6 Policy.
The proposed update indeed makes the policy clearer and has removed some of the ambiguity contained in the current version.
On the concern raised on...... "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" ......being for small service providers, I am of the opinion that the size of the administrative organization does not matter as long as they can justify their Current and Planned need.
On Friday, April 27, 2018, 12:27:44 PM GMT+1, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:
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  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?
1. The word "small" is relative.
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD