Hi All, I support Vincent's policy.
In regards to the questions about /48s on /32 boundaries, this will only work if there is a very large block allocated for the /32 boundary based blocks. Many people filter /48s in the routing table that are not allocated out of specific RIR blocks reserved for P.I space, now, if AfriNIC is allocating P.I on /32 boundaries, this block is going to need to be sized such that you can allocate a large number of P.I blocks on said boundaries, and at this point I become worried about wasting space (you're looking at reserving probably a /16 for P.I if you want to be able to expand to 2^16 /48 P.I blocks, and a /16 is a vast amount of space to reserve for an actual space allocation of /32!) Just my thoughts Andrew -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vincent Ngundi Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:52 PM To: Resource Policy Discussion List Subject: Re: [afrinic-resource-policy-discuss] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNICPolicy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment forEnd-Sites On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark J Elkins wrote: > 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. * IMHO, a /48 is a lot of space. No?? * As for how the assignment will be done, I think we should leave that to AfriNIC. -v >> --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 > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
