OPPS - In my posting - I see a mistake....
Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
I support the policy. One bit thats not clear, is each /48 (whatever)
assignment in its own unique /32 or are all /48's in a single (for now)
/32 ?
In RIPE, many IXP's are in the same 2001:7f8::/32 space,
ie DE-CIX = 2001:7f8:0::/48 (They were first so have the slightly
confusing look of being a /32)
LIPEX = 2001:7f8:5::/48
This would appear to be a good thing to do - ISP's should never need
The line above should have IXP - not ISP.
more space than a /48....
However, for companies of unknown size and growth that request PI space
- it might be more appropriate to put them in their own unique /32. I,
however, see no reason not to make these /32's allocated back-to-back
(numerically consecutive).
if a PI request qualify for /32, it should be assigned from LIR blocs.
The assumption above is that a company of unknown growth potential who
asks for PI space of size /48 should be allocated a /48 - in a unique
/32 - which could be in an area where /32's are allocated back to back.
On the other hand - AfriNIC currently has so much IPv6 space - maybe
this really does not matter???
My point is that I believe its safe to separate known small (/48)
allocations (ie - for IXP's) and take them from a single /32 - and treat
them separately from other organisations asking for /48's who have
unknown potential growth.
--alain
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa
/| /| / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
