[address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

You need to read all the policies before making such statements. For example
that explains the /32 in LACNIC.

RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures, and
in some regions, then they get a /32, and while you can't warrantee that a
/48 will be filtered, I agree that a /32 is the right size for any critical
infrastructure.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>
> Organización: Unfix
> Responder a: <jeroen at unfix.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:18:25 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>, RIPE Address Policy <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, "IPv6
> in Africa <afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>" <afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>, APNIC
> IPv6 <global-v6 at lists.apnic.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie>,
> <aalain at trstech.net>
> Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to
> AFRINIC
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Jeroen,
>> 
>> This is just ridiculous.
> 
> What is ridiculous is that /32's are getting wasted and will never be used.
> What is also ridiculous is that RIR policies are trying to avoid end-sites
> getting /48's in some places who need it to 'control routingtable entries'
> but then this shows up as a full /32 that never will be used.
> 
> Now *THAT* is what is ridiculous.
> 
> I have no problem at all with an organization receiving a justified /48, but a
> /32 for an organisation that will never ever use more than a /40 is
> ridiculous.
> 
>> All the RIRs have their own /32 for their internal usage.
> 
> APNIC has one indeed: 2001:dc0::/32 but the rest doesn't.
> ARIN has a 2001:500::/48 which is more correct, they won't need much more.
> Where exactly is the one for RIPE, ARIN and LACNIC? See that is not !ALL!
> 
> RIPE even went so far to use 2 /48's (SURFNET+BIT) to avoid coming into the
> mess of being preferential to themselves.
> 
> Also, since when is a RIR special in anyway?
> Also, since when do those networks justify the need of 65536 /48's?
> 
> The point is not about AFRINIC, it is about wasting address space without
> justification.
> 
> Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
>> This does not meet the requirements above. So you won't get it.
> 
> It fully does, how else did AFRINIC assign a /32 to themselves?
> 
> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Frankly, I fail to see the problem here.  IMO, bona-fide LIRs should be
>> entitled to an ipv6 allocation under these terms at least in the RIPE
>> region.
> 
> I agree that when an organization can justify (using HD ratios etc) the need
> for address space that they will fully be able to get that address space
> without any issues. But is AFRINIC (10-50 people) able to justify a /32 based
> on that?
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 




**********************************************
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.