<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Hi Andrew,</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Thanks for your comments/input.</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">As I’ve stated in previous emails, I still believe that we should probably stay in line with what the other regions are doing here in order to avoid complications and different filtering systems globally to make the P.I space work.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">That is, a single block out of which allocations of /48 are made as a minimum. That way, a single prefix list could be applied on an ISP’s bgp peers that basically says (cisco syntax here, though its simply an illustration of principle)</SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you.</DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Permit aaaa:aaaa::/yy le 48<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">permit xxxx:xxxx::/yy le 48 <O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">permit zzzz:zzzz::/yy le 48<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">permit ::/0 le 32<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Where A X and Z are the pre-defined P.I blocks from the various regions, everything else that’s in the tables that smaller in size than a /32 gets dumped. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">If we then decide to allocate these /48s on /44 boundaries so that organizations can grow (/44 being what I would consider a reasonable boundary for growth of individual companies) it would allow for companies to grow and add more /48s without growing the routing table because the blocks would be contiguous. If AfriNIC were to allocate a /28 for this purpose it allows for 2^16 (65536) P.I /44 blocks, which should last a fairly long time, and if it becomes necessary to grow this, its just a matter of adding another /28 prefix to the prefix list to expand the P.I space. We could even allocate that /28 on a /26 boundary for safety!</SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>If we take this approach, we may end up with a lot of wasted (unallocatable) space. For instance, how many organisations may expand such that they require an additional /48 (I'm being realistic here, not pessimistic)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>IMHO, I think a /48 = ( 2^16 (65536) /64's) from a reserved /32 will do unless we intend to silently get rid of the IPv6 Allocation Policy.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>-v</DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">This at the end of the day covers most of the aspects,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"=""><SPAN style="mso-list:Ignore">A.)<SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">It provides P.I space (which there seems to be consensus on from what I’m reading)<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"=""><SPAN style="mso-list:Ignore">B.)<SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">It provides enough space that the blocks can be expanded for institutions who have P.I space up to a /44, which, providing institutions are using a /48 per physical site would give them up to 16 physical sites (as an example, they could break /48s across multiple physical sites as well)<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"=""><SPAN style="mso-list:Ignore">C.)<SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">It provides enough space for the allocations of these P.I blocks without needing extensive filter lists on routers for the P.I prefix blocks and allows for the differentiation of P.I blocks versus P.A blocks by simply looking at the block the space was assigned out of. (This becomes even more obvious an advantage if the P.I allocation block is initially published on a /28 boundary but with a /26 reserved by AfriNIC incase of need)<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"=""><SPAN style="mso-list:Ignore">D.)<SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">In the case of point B.) due to the fact that sites can grow their blocks on a contiguous basis, it prevents massive growth in the routing table<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Just my thoughts, curious to hear what the disagreements with this are.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Thanks<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Andrew Alston<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">TENET – Chief Technology Officer<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"=""><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></P> <DIV> <DIV style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><P class="MsoNormal"><B><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:" tahoma","sans-serif""="">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:" tahoma","sans-serif""=""> rpd-bounces@afrinic.net [<A href="mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net">mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net</A>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Hytham EL Nakhal<BR> <B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:55 PM<BR> <B>To:</B> AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List<BR> <B>Subject:</B> RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P> </DIV> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> <DIV id="idOWAReplyText47537"> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-family:" arial","sans-serif""="">Dear Vincent,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P><SPAN style="font-family:" arial","sans-serif""="">I'd like to discuss something may be get benefits of all suggestions regarding PI assignment, What about dedicating a /32 for PI assignments, and each PI is /48 , so we have 2 to the power 16 PI assignments (i.e. 65536 /48 PI blocks). AfriNIC provide services for Africa Continent which contains about 55 countries. So if we divide PI blocks equally over countries we find that each country will have more than 1190 PI blocks, "Is it enough for each country" ? to know the answer we can have a look on the number of IPv4 PI assignments for each country in database (keeping in mind that /48 IPv6 block has addresses more more than /24 IPv4). </SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P><SPAN style="font-family:" arial","sans-serif""="">Then we can make all /48 PI assignments from a dedicated /32 block and in same time we can arrange for a serial /48 blocks for each country and inside each country we can keep a guard band for each PI assignment in case of future growth. </SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P> <O:P></O:P></P><P><SPAN style="font-family:" arial","sans-serif""="">Thanks,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P><SPAN style="font-family:" arial","sans-serif""="">Haitham..</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <HR size="2" width="100%" align="center"> </DIV> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><B><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:" tahoma","sans-serif""="">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:" tahoma","sans-serif""=""> <A href="mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net">rpd-bounces@afrinic.net</A> on behalf of Vincent Ngundi<BR> <B>Sent:</B> Tue 3/13/2007 3:51 PM<BR> <B>To:</B> Resource Policy Discussion List<BR> <B>Cc:</B> AfriNIC Policy Working Group List<BR> <B>Subject:</B> [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Hi All, <O:P></O:P></P> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we have had so far.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><B>So far, we have the following arguments:</B><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">(a) Andrew Levin <SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(30.01.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns about the global routing table<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">(b) Frank Habitcht <SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(30.01.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">was in agreement that there was need for PI assignments < /48 especially in the case of IXP's since the prefix would not appear in the global routing table.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">(c) Mark Elkins<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(01.02.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique /32 (which should be preserved to accommodate growth)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><B>From the above points:</B><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">(b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become an LIR.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it is.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><B>Currently statistics:</B><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">* Yea (those in support of the policy)<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>:<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>6<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">* Nay (those _not in support of the policy)<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>:<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>1<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Finally, I wish to encourage more members of the community to give their views on this policy, or at least indicate whether they are in favour of it or not.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Abuja is only 5 weeks away!<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">-v<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> <DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><BR> <BR> <O:P></O:P></P> <DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="color:#1F497D">Hi Vincent,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="color:#1F497D">I’m ok with all of this except for the following:</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">* The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can justify it.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt">I’m happy with /48s, I’m even happier with bigger blocks, but there should *<B>NEVER</B>* be a situation where the block is smaller than this in the global routing tables. If the blocks can ever be smaller than /48 in size it is going to create major BGP filtering headaches.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt">Can this wording be clarified?</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt">Many Thanks</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt">Andrew Alston</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt">TENET – Chief Technology Officer</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">resource-policy mailing list<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><A href="mailto:resource-policy@afrinic.net">resource-policy@afrinic.net</A><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy</A><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV> </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_______________________________________________</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">rpd mailing list</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</A></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A></DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>