Hi Jordi,
On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:34 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Vincent, all,
I was considering withdrawing my PI proposal and instead agree with
you in a
common text among us, in order to push for a single proposal with
may be
easier, hopefully, to adopt by everybody. However, I think there
are some
points that could make this not feasible.
Basically, in my proposal, people was concerned about:
1) Making it temporary (so I'm happy to remove that, as clearly all
the
policies are somehow subjected to a change).
2) Using a /48 as a starting point (but not a longer prefix),
instead of
/32. Basically my idea is to allow the hostmaster to decide if the
requester
can work with a /48 (example an IXP), may be others if there are no
filtering problems, but allow them to allocate a /32 if needed (or
anything
in the middle (hopefully not !)), for example if there are filtering
problems.
But your proposal seems to be targeted ONLY to critical
infrastructures (so
the tittle of the proposal should be also modified if I'm correct),
and
that's wrong if you consider as critical infrastructures ONLY IXPs,
TLDs,
etc. What about a data center or any enterprise with may be (or not)
multihomed ?
The policy is not *only* for critical infrastructures, it's for *end-
sites*, in general, that can justify the need for PI v6 space. This
is clearly stipulated in the draft policy. What I meant is that we
should not forget that we currently have in place a policy for
acquiring IPv6 space through an LIR.
The decision on whether one qualifies for PI v6 space (and how much
space) rests in the hands of the AfriNIC administration. The policy
is meant to put in place structures (agreed upon by the community for
assignment of the same) that will guide the AfriNIC administration in
making such decisions.
Kindly let us know if this is clear; we need to know if we are in the
same footing.
Remember that those entities CANN't become an LIR (I think your
point c
below is wrong on this), because they do not provide services to
external
customers (other entities).
I see your point here.
However, this is taken care of very well in the draft:
(a)
"Introduction
This policy allows 'end-sites' to be assigned IPv6 provider
independent (PI) addresses. 'end-sites' include End-Users who already
have or qualify to get IPv4 PI addresses and critical Infrastructure
providers such as TLD root server operators and public Internet
eXchange Points (IXP's)."
(b)
"Assignment target
End-sites which provide Public Internet services for a single
administrative organisations' network, regardless of their size."
(c)
"Provider Independent (PI) address space
The initial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can
justify it."
So if you agree in "re-orienting" your proposal (I can work tonight
on your
text to provide you a draft and agree among us before sending to
the list),
in order to cover all PI cases, and not just critical
infrastructures, then
I guess we can make a better job instead of having two "competing"
proposals.
Please send me the re-draft.
-v
What do you think ?
Regards,
Jordi
De: Vincent Ngundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
<[email protected]>
Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:10:20 +0300
Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
Proposal:
IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
Hi Hytham,
Thanks for your comment/input.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
Dear Vincent,
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).
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.
This is a very nice suggestion.
(a) IMHO, though a /32 is not as large a space as the numbers may
insinuate, with proper usage of assigned /48 prefixes, we can greatly
minimise the need for preserving a /32 for every /48 assigned.
(b) On the other hand, we need to consider the needs/demand for IP
from the different countries in the AfriNIC region; it's not
proportionate.
(c) It's however worth noting that end-users with a high demand (>> /
48) for v6 space can always become an LIR or acquire the same from an
LIR. Let's not forget that the primary objective of this policy is to
provide PI v6 for critical infrastructure providers.
Let's see what others have to say about this.
-v
Thanks,
Haitham..
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Vincent Ngundi
Sent: Tue 3/13/2007 3:51 PM
To: Resource Policy Discussion List
Cc: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
Hi All,
Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we
have had so far.
So far, we have the following arguments:
(a) Andrew Levin (30.01.2007)
proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns
about the global routing table
(b) Frank Habitcht (30.01.2007)
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.
(c) Mark Elkins (01.02.2007)
Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique /32
(which should be preserved to accommodate growth)
From the above points:
(b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should
allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.
as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become
an LIR.
In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it
is.
Currently statistics:
* Yea (those in support of the policy) : 6
* Nay (those _not in support of the policy) : 1
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.
Abuja is only 5 weeks away!
-v
On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I'm ok with all of this except for the following:
* 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.
I'm happy with /48s, I'm even happier with bigger blocks, but
there should *NEVER* 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.
Can this wording be clarified?
Many Thanks
Andrew Alston
TENET - Chief Technology Officer
_______________________________________________
resource-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy
<winmail.dat>
_______________________________________________
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
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
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
