<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi All,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Useful statistics:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>In particular:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#03">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#03</A></DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#05">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#05</A></DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#08">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm#08</A><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>-v</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><DIV><DIV>On Mar 14, 2007, at 12:17 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"="">Vincent, <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"="">I see your point possibly about the waste of IPv6 space, and while I *<B>DO</B>* agree that we should not be over enthusiastic about the allocation of V6 space which could cause us to run out, we need to think of this as a balance, a balance between the size of allocations and the effect on 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"="">Yes, potentially there is a waste of space allocating /48s on /44 boundaries out of a /28 block, however, considering the size of the V6 space and the fact that Deutsche Telecomms managed to get their own /19 worth of IPv6 space, I really do NOT believe this is a problem considering the effect it has on stopping the 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"="">The entire reason that the IPv4 routing table is sitting at over 200 thousand routes today and growing so fast is in my opinion about the size of allocations and the boundaries on which they are done. <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"="">At the moment (in IPv4)<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"="">Company A starts, they want to multihome, and they go and get some P.I space, a /24<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Tomorrow they grow, they go and get another /24, maybe a /23 this time<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">A few months from now, they grow some more, they ask for ANOTHER allocation, now they are advertising 3 prefix’s because there was no boundary to expand to stop this happening.<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"="">The future I envisage:<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"="">Company A starts, and gets a /48 prefix<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Tomorrow they grow, open a new office, they contact afrinic and go “We need more space”, AfriNIC replies “Sure, take your /48 and make it a /47”<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:" calibri","sans-serif";="" color:#1f497d"="">Company A goes into their router, replaces the mask on the BGP announcement, routing table doesn’t grow, problem solved.<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"="">The reason for doing it out of a /28 or a /26 is purely so that there can be filtering of the smaller segments, in line with what ARIN is doing.<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"="">To do /48s out of a /32 block is to repeat a chronic mistake made in the past that will lead to the very growth in the routing table that people are so scared of with regards P.I IPv6 Space. What I’m proposing I believe is the middle ground between space preservation and routing table growth. It’s also almost identical to what ARIN has done and keeps up in line with the other regions. <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"="">I think we’d be foolish to assume as well that 65536 /48s will ever be enough, it might be today, it might be next year, and the year after, but there are more than 800 million people on the African continent, that makes for a LOT of companies, and today, in Africa internet access is expensive, technology is expensive, technical know-how is limited, however, we cannot use that as a reason to not plan for tomorrow. I strongly believe that Africa needs to move forward with a vision of what we can be tomorrow, where Internet penetration rates are the same as they are in Europe and the States, where the technology is the same and the pricing is the same. In that future, multi-homing and P.I is a necessity, and 65k /48s will not cut it. Lets avoid yet ANOTHER mistake I so often see, and not underestimate the capacity for growth on the African continent!</SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV class="Section1"><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 <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"=""><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>Vincent Ngundi<BR> <B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:24 AM<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><P class="MsoNormal">Hi Andrew,<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your comments/input.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> <DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><BR> <BR> <O:P></O:P></P> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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></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">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)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal">I agree with you.<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <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">Permit aaaa:aaaa::/yy le 48<O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">permit xxxx:xxxx::/yy le 48 <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">permit zzzz:zzzz::/yy le 48<O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">permit ::/0 le 32<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">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></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">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!<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><P class="MsoNormal">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)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">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.<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> <BLOCKQUOTE style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <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">This at the end of the day covers most of the aspects,<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="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in">A.)<SPAN style="font-size: 7.0pt"> </SPAN>It provides P.I space (which there seems to be consensus on from what I’m reading)<O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in">B.)<SPAN style="font-size: 7.0pt"> </SPAN>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></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in">C.)<SPAN style="font-size: 7.0pt"> </SPAN>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></P><P class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in">D.)<SPAN style="font-size: 7.0pt"> </SPAN>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></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">Just my thoughts, curious to hear what the disagreements with this are.<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">Thanks<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">Andrew Alston<O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">TENET – Chief Technology Officer<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 style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><B>From:</B> <A href="mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net">rpd-bounces@afrinic.net</A> [<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></P> </DIV> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P> <DIV id="idOWAReplyText47537"> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dear Vincent,<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P>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). <O:P></O:P></P><P>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. <O:P></O:P></P><P> <O:P></O:P></P><P>Thanks,<O:P></O:P></P><P>Haitham..<O:P></O:P></P> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <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="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><B>From:</B> <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<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi All, <O:P></O:P></P> <DIV><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">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" 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"><B>So far, we have the following arguments:</B><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> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">(a) Andrew Levin <SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(30.01.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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" 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">(b) Frank Habitcht <SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(30.01.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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" 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">(c) Mark Elkins<SPAN class="apple-tab-span"> </SPAN>(01.02.2007)<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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" 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"> <O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><B>From the above points:</B><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> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">(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" 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">as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become an LIR.<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> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it is.<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> </DIV> <DIV><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"><B>Currently statistics:</B><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> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">* 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" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">* 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" 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">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" 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">Abuja is only 5 weeks away!<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> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">-v<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> <DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><BR> <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" 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">resource-policy mailing list<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><A href="mailto:resource-policy@afrinic.net">resource-policy@afrinic.net</A><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </DIV> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal">rpd mailing list<O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><A href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</A><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> <DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><O:P></O:P></P> </DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE> </DIV><P class="MsoNormal"><O:P> </O:P></P> </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></DIV></BODY></HTML>