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

[aleruchi chuku]

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.

Regards
Aleruchi Chuku
 

    On Friday, April 27, 2018, 12:27:44 PM GMT+1, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:  
 
 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?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. The word "small" is relative.


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180427/9fe152c5/attachment.html>