Hi Colleagues,
I'm sending a copy of Jordi's amendments to the draft policy I
proposed for your consideration.
Kindly note that the points he intends to alter are as follows:
(a) changing the word "end-user(s)" to "end-user-organisation(s)"
(b) changing the assignment target from provides of "Public Internet
services" to providers of "services" thus;
"End-sites which provide Public Internet services for a single
administrative organisations' network, regardless of their size."
to
"End-sites which provide services for a single administrative
organisations' network, regardless of their size."
(c) There should be no need for assigning a prefix longer than /48;
thus a minimum assignment of a /48 or a shorter prefix if AfriNIC
deems there's justification.
Kindly review the draft (below) and post your comments on whether we
need to incorporate the changes or not.
<jordi>
**************
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations
Incentive: The current policy does not allow IPv6 provider
independent (PI)
address assignment to any 'end-user-organizations'. In addition, lack of
IPv6 transport will compel many 'end-user-organizations' to tunnel.
Thus, to
avoid renumbering when IPv6 transport will be available, a provider
independent assignment seems a reasonable need. More over, not all LIR's
have IPv6 address space allocations. This makes it impossible for
end-user-organizations to get PA IPv6 address space from such upstreams
(LIR's). This policy is also aimed at providing IPv6 address space to
such
end-user-organizations as long as they already have or qualify to get PI
IPv4 addresses.
Introduction
This policy allows 'end-user-organizations' to be assigned IPv6 provider
independent (PI) addresses. 'End-user-organizations' include End-
Users who
already have or qualify to get IPv4 PI addresses and critical
Infrastructure
providers such as, but not limited to, TLD or root server operators and
public Internet eXchange Points (IXP's).
Current Situation
AfriNIC has discussed similar proposals recently during it's last two
Open
Policy meetings but both proposals have been returned to the public
mailing
lists for further discussion due to lack of consensus. This proposal
try to
put together the previous proposals and the inputs received from the
community in order to achieve consensus.
Details
(1) Assignment target:
End-user-organizations which provide services for a single
administrative
organizations' network, regardless of their size.
(2) Assignment criteria:
* The end-user-organization must not be an IPv6 LIR
* The end-user-organization must become an AfriNIC End User Member
and pay
the normal AfriNIC fee for its' membership category
* The end-user-organization must either:
- be a holder of IPv4 PI address space or
- qualify for an IPv4 PI assignment from AfriNIC under the IPv4
policy
currently in effect.
* The end-user-organization must justify the need for the IPv6 PI
address
space.
* The 'end-user-organization' 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.
(3) Provider Independent (PI) address space:
* The provider independent (PI) assignment should be made from a
specified
contiguous super-block, to be defined by AfriNIC.
* The initial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
should be
a /48. However a shorter prefix will be assigned by AfriNIC if the
need is
justified (examples of this need may be bigger address block required,
filtering issues, etc.).
Effect on AfriNIC
No direct effect on the existing AfriNIC members, nor changes to the
current
IPv6 allocation criteria.
**************
Some notes for your clarification:
Note that I'm using end-user-organizations, the reason for that is
because
it opens the spectrum of cases that may apply for this policy. It
seems the
same, but is not. We had long discussions about this in other regions
also
...
I removed "Public Internet services" because it may limit the scope.
Some
organizations may require PI even if they don't provide services
(example a
bank).
I've done also some other minor changes across the text, mainly esthetic
issues.
</jordi>
-v
On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Is not *another* proposal. My proposal was there for long time ago,
and
didn't passed the previous round, so I was working in updating it
with the
inputs received during the meeting, in the list and off-line.
So the 2nd one was the one that we are discussing now :-)
What I'm precisely saying is that instead of having two proposals,
we should
withdraw one of them (and I offered to do so with the one I
submitted, even
if that one was there before) and try to combine the inputs in just
one. But
of course, this will work only if Vincent agree in my comments
(which I
think are reflecting the discussions/inputs received since long
time ago for
BOTH proposals).
Regards,
Jordi
De: Andrew Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:10:35 +0200
Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'AfriNIC Resource Policy
Discussion List'
<[email protected]>
Asunto: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
Proposal:
IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
Hi Jordi,
I'm actually really really against coming up with ANOTHER
proposal. With
the urgency involved in getting action on this policy (considering
that we
have been debating this since mid 2005), another proposal will
mean that yet
again there will be no vote and no action in Nigeria in a few weeks.
Please, lets hammer out with what we have and see if we can find an
agreement that can be voted on and either outright rejected or
passed at the
next meeting!
Thanks
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:34 PM
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
Proposal:
IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
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 ?
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).
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.
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
**********************************************
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
