<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:13px;"><div><span><div><font size="5">I will like to join Moonesamy in appreciating your proposal for an update to the current IPV6 Policy.<br></font><div><font size="5">The proposed update indeed makes the policy clearer and has removed some of the ambiguity contained in the current version.<br></font><div><font size="5"><br></font><div><font size="5"><span>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 <b>Current and Planned</b> need.<br></span><span></span></font><div><font size="5"><br></font><div><font size="5">Regards<br>Aleruchi Chuku</font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div id="yahoo_quoted_5545116657" class="yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Friday, April 27, 2018, 12:27:44 PM GMT+1, sm+afrinic@elandsys.com <sm+afrinic@elandsys.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Hi Jordi,<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I read AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01. I would like to thank you for <br></div><div dir="ltr">proposing an update to the existing IPv6 policy as there has been <br></div><div dir="ltr">changes from the SDO since the policy was written.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The existing policy states that the RIR "is not concerned about which <br></div><div dir="ltr">address size an LIR actually assigns". This proposal changes that as <br></div><div dir="ltr">it has 'End sites or users must be assigned a prefix that is a <br></div><div dir="ltr">multiple of "n" /64's which must be enough to meet their current and <br></div><div dir="ltr">planned needs ...' Does that make the IPv6 policy one which is based <br></div><div dir="ltr">on a "needs-basis" for a small [1] service provider?<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The proposed change in "6.8" sets a requirement where IPv6 PI space <br></div><div dir="ltr">is dependent upon qualification for IPv4 PI space. What is the <br></div><div dir="ltr">rationale for keeping the dependency?<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Regards,<br></div><div dir="ltr">S. Moonesamy<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">1. The word "small" is relative.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br></div><div dir="ltr">RPD mailing list<br></div><div dir="ltr"><a ymailto="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>