On Wednesday 27 June 2007 08:48:14 pm bill fumerola wrote: > AfriNIC has implemented a PIv6 space policy[0]. part of it states: > > "* The 'end-site' must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6 provider > independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that period, > if not announced, the assigned IPv6 PI address space should be reclaimed > and returned to the free pool by AfriNIC." > > the policy document[0] itself says "Open for Discussion" but: > > http://www.afrinic.net/policy.htm#policies > afpol-v6200701 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites > 13.06.2007 Implemented > > ... lists it as implemented.
The status has been fixed. > those in the AfriNIC region who want globally unique, registered space > but do not plan to "announce the IPv6 PI address space" have no method > of getting any such space. if anyone reads this differently than i do, > please educate me. i don't think they mean 'announce' to partner(s) or > within intra-AS boundaries, but admittedly i haven't read their mail > archives to see if this angle was ever brought up. no. > this leaves a few options like getting PA space from an LIR or becoming > a LIR(?!) as an option of getting space for the purpose of unique local > addressing, but the downside(s) to that seem too obvious to mention. > > you could also announce the PI or LIR block and just null route it on > your edge, but i don't think that's the spirit of the policy and is a > slap in the face to those trying to keep the IPv6 global routing tables > tight & clean. > > so in the AfriNIC region, "why not just get PI space for what you want > ULA-C for" isn't an option and the alternatives and workarounds aren't > that clean. > > in that region there is a separate ULA-C policy[1] 'under discussion' > (and others[2] submitted by the same person), but i think there's been > general consensus on RIR lists and history on policies with global > implications that says the outcome of an IETF decision one way or another > on the fate of ULA-C (or another I-D that addresses similar needs perhaps > out of a different prefix than ULA-*) is more desirable than individual > RIRs acting prematurely or making policy based on proposed I-Ds. > > nothing prevents other RIRs from changing their policies later to have > similar requirements. also, nothing indicates other RIRs are considering > changing their policies in this direction now or in the future. the PI policy was not developed and discussed to cover the ULA-C needs. The ULA-C proposal did not reach concensus in our region and the outcome of the IETF discussions is awaited. But nothing prevents the region for changing the PI policy. --alain -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
