<HTML dir=rtl><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [policy-wg] IPV6 PI space</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=4>Hi All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>I'm new here, But in brief I'm agree with Andrew ... /48 is more than enough for IXP , /32 for LIR , and /48 for P.I. prefix's out of /30 v6 block.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>and regarding the following :</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>> Which approach are we taking here while coming up with a solution:<BR>><BR>> Is it:<BR>> (a) looking at what other RIR's are doing<BR>> (b) considering the needs of the AfriNIC community<BR>> (c) both<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>I'd prefer (c) choice as we can get the "benefits of all"... see what others have done & choose what are suitable for us and then tune it to fit with African LIR's.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>Haitham El Nakhal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=4>ICT Technical Affairs Advisor</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>من:</B> policy-wg-bounces@afrinic.net بالنيابة عن Andrew Alston<BR><B>تاريخ الإرسال:</B> الخميس 12/14/2006 3:34 م<BR><B>إلى:</B> 'AfriNIC Policy Working Group List'<BR><B>الموضوع:</B> RE: [policy-wg] IPV6 PI space<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<P dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Hi There,<BR><BR>Unfortunately I was unable to attend the AfriNIC meeting in Mauritius due to<BR>other commitments, however, having been involved in the P.I debate for a<BR>while and having kept a close watch on the developments in this regard<BR>around the world, I tend to take a different view on this.<BR><BR>I firmly believe that with regards P.I space, a /48 allocation is enough.<BR>Firstly, for IXP space, there is a trend to move towards /126 networks on<BR>point to point allocations (do not use /127's, there are a variety of<BR>reasons for this), therefore, IXP's could operate off a single /48,<BR>utilizing /64's per IXP, and utilizing /126 networks for the actual peering<BR>requirements.<BR><BR>Secondly, with regards to end user networks, for AfriNIC to allocate /32's<BR>in P.I space would again run contrary to what the global trends are, ARIN<BR>has agreed to /48 P.I space, and (someone correct me if I 'm wrong here),<BR>APNIC is about to ratify their /48 P.I policy. <BR><BR>Considering that /48 amounts to 2^16 (65536) /64's, each of which can be an<BR>end point network, a /48 should be more than sufficient for P.I allocations<BR>to individual companies. ISP's should qualify for /32s and become LIR's if<BR>they want the /32s and are allocating onwards.<BR><BR>I would prefer therefore that as per global trends, AfriNIC allocates a set<BR>block out of which to assign /48 P.I prefix's (possibly a /30 or a /31), and<BR>assigns the /48s outta that prefix for all P.I space. That block can then<BR>be made public, so that those of us that update filters to filter /48<BR>deaggregated announcements can add exceptions for the specified prefix.<BR><BR>I would say that where companies have more than one physical location there<BR>could potentially be an exception to this policy, so that a company that has<BR>multiple physically diverse branches, might for example qualify for multiple<BR>/48s, purely for the purpose of better routing aggregation, but again, these<BR>/48s out of the same block referred to earlier.<BR><BR>The above would be more in line with what is done globally, and would avoid<BR>the complications of BGP filters that were different for different regions!<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>Andrew Alston<BR>TENET - Chief Technology Officer<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: policy-wg-bounces@afrinic.net [<A href="mailto:policy-wg-bounces@afrinic.net">mailto:policy-wg-bounces@afrinic.net</A>]<BR>On Behalf Of Mark J Elkins<BR>Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:41 PM<BR>To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List<BR>Subject: [policy-wg] IPV6 PI space<BR><BR>Firstly - the training and knowledge received in Mauritius was great<BR>with respect to IPV6. This has allowed me to better understand the needs<BR>and concerns of others. However - I am by no means the expert and<BR>expected to be corrected when incorrect.<BR><BR>I believe there needs to be some sort of PI policy. I do not believe<BR>that is is very healthy for Exchange Points (IXP's) to use the address<BR>space of a particular ISP. I also believe that its unhealthy for some<BR>organisations (eg - CCTLD's) that currently have IPV4 PI space and who<BR>are Multi-Homed to also have space from any particular ISP.<BR><BR>I believe that AfriNIC needs two different PI allocation policies for<BR>these two different areas:<BR><BR>For Exchange Points<BR>---------------------------<BR><BR>These need a small, non-wasteful, low maintenance allocation - for<BR>example, an allocation of a /44 would allow for 16 "networks" (each of<BR>/48) to be established. A /48 is more than suitable for a single (even<BR>geographically dispersed) IXP, thus a /44 should be sufficient for a<BR>country or a countries ISPA. (By this - I'm thinking of South Africa<BR>with currently only one active peering point, but with potential<BR>expansion to a total of three points - but all managed by a single ISPA<BR>type organisation).<BR>I'd like to see AfriNIC allocate these /44's out of a single /32, which<BR>means there are 4096 of these allocations available. These should be<BR>only used for IXP's and should (I'd like to suggest) have no<BR>re-occurring charge associated with them.<BR>The allocation could be made to the ISPA type organisation - so that<BR>there is no need for ongoing maintenance of the allocation (or at least<BR>greatly reduce the maintenance burden on AfriNIC).<BR>I see this as promoting the use of IPV6 and also of IXP's (and ISPA's)<BR>within the AfriNIC region.<BR>By allocating a /44, the Reverse DNS responsibilities (and hence - usage<BR>of AfriNIC resources) is minimalised and filtering could also be done on<BR>/44's. The allocations should be made on /40 boundaries so when there is<BR>a need to allocate a particular country (or ISPA) with additional space,<BR>to do so from the same /40. This allows for 256 different "countries".<BR>Technically - IXP allocations do not need to be globally route-able - so<BR>this type of allocation should be fine.<BR>The other assumption here is that the IXP (or ISPA - whatever) is a<BR>non-commercial (non-profit) organisation - in order to be exempt from<BR>re-occurring fees.<BR>(By extension, maybe even allocate a /32 to AfrISPA - and let them<BR>delegate onwards? - but I'm trying to not have options)<BR><BR>For other existing holders of IPV4 PI Space<BR>---------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>For all organisations that currently have IPV4 PI space within the<BR>AfriNIC region, they should be allowed to obtain full /32's of IPV6<BR>space. Prerequisites should be: Holding AfriNIC IPV4 PI space, an<BR>AfriNIC ASN and Proof of Multi-Homing within the AfriNIC region - or<BR>proof that it has been requested and is impending.<BR>(kiss - Keeping It Simple)<BR><BR><BR><BR>No policy is exempt from changes in the future. The above policy<BR>suggestions are to tackle todays requirements whilst keeping them<BR>flexible enough that they may serve the AfriNIC regions needs for the<BR>next few years.<BR><BR>--<BR> . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa<BR> /| /| / /__ mje@posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco<BR>CCIE<BR>/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>policy-wg mailing list<BR>policy-wg@afrinic.net<BR><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>policy-wg mailing list<BR>policy-wg@afrinic.net<BR><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-wg</A><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>