I think something need to be clarified here,
AfriNIC policy can not take in account various internal
reservation policy of every one. The HD ratio change policy
is based only on the current IPv6 allocation policy and the
new proposal itself starts by:
"The current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy
(afpol-v6200407-000) suggests that most IPv6 subscribers
should be assigned a /48 "in the general case". The policy
also requests AfriNIC to evaluate requests for additional
allocations based on "units of /48 assignments" and that
LIRs be allocated in general a /32." - based on the rfc3177
So if an organisation has a specific reservation policy this
can not be applied by everyone and hence can not be taken into
account in this proposal. If we think that the /48 boundary
is not good then we should think about another policy to
address that separately.
- a.
I do not believe that NRENs are necessarily special as regards the
desire of a LIR to plan its pattern of assignments to promote
aggregation within the LIR's network. In my previous posting I
described TENET's policy of reserving /44s per university/research
campus so as to provide for future contiguous assignments to each
assignee. This follows a recommendation at the Barcelona IPv6 Summit. In
his posting, Mark Elkins of Posix Systems described his assignment
planning which provides for geographically oriented aggregation within
his network.
The point is that setting the HD threshold for LIRs at 0.94 will
eventually force LIRs to abandon all but the vaguest of assignment plans
long before they meet the threshold criterion for a further allocation.
Has anyone made the case yet as to why the scarcity of IPv6 addresses
forces the RIRs to impose such a high HD ratio threshold on their LIRs?
Duncan Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> Sent: 22 May 2007 20:12
> To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Call for Comments for IPv6 HD Ratio Change
>
> On 22 May 2007, at 12:40pm, Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> LIRs for NREN many need a specific policy which covers various
> >>>> aspects including this one.
> >>>>
> >>> It may make sense to allow the current HD Ratio change to
> go through
> >>> and put through a new proposal for use by REN's to be
> excluded - or
> >>> rather - if they are following the above guideline - for
> that to be
> >>> taken into consideration.
> >>
> >> You'd like RENs to get a special policy allowing them to be less
> >> efficient but hold supermarket operators, military
> organisations and
> >> telephone companies to the higher efficiency threshold? Is that
> >> right?
> >>
> >> Why should RENs get an easier life than everyone else?
> >
> > i expect this answer to come with the arguments behind the
> barcelona
> > recommendation through the policy proposal.
>
> If NRENs' networks are so significantly different from the
> networks run by everyone else then I am sure they will be
> able to provide convincing arguments. So, my question to the
> NREN folks is: what is it that is different about your
> networks that means they need a special case policy?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date:
2007-05-22 15:49
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 2007-05-22 15:49
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
