[address-policy-wg] RE: [afripv6-discuss] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

Joeren,

To be fair, start your rant also about those that got /13 and those that got
/19 :-)


Latif
 

-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
Sent: 22 June 2007 18:09
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: ppml at arin.net; APNIC IPv6; RIPE Address Policy; IPv6 in Africa
<afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: [afripv6-discuss] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the
cheap way: go to AFRINIC

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Jeroen,
> 
> you're muddling two separate issues here.
> 
> 1. There is no special justification for a LIR to be assigned a /32 in 
> afrinic areas.  As far as I'm concerned, this is fine and I'd be all 
> in favour of this sort of allocation guideline making its way into
RIPE-land.

I am also fine with that as long as there is a justification for the address
space. Just being LIR is not good enough IMHO. Address space should be
provided under the premise that it will actually be used one day. As such
/48's are very appropriate for end-sites, upto /40 for large corporations,
anything above that should be able to get a /32. But this all by
justification of need.

That we have enough address space today is great, but when they invent this
nice "stay young forever pill to fly to Jupiter and back forever", then
people in that era and everybody else also want to have IPv6 address space
(unless we replace it again by then :). This thus might affect you yourself
too, as such, I speak up on this.

> 2. Afrinic allocated themselves a /32.
> 
> Afrinic are a RIR, not a LIR, and it appears that they broke the rules 
> by allocating themselves a /32 (i.e. LIR size) instead of a /48 
> (end-user size).

And also without any real justification, as of yet.

> This is not good.  The least we expect from the (monopolistic) RIRs is 
> that they abide strictly by the rules set out by themselves and the 
> community. If they have any sense in the matter, they'll hand 
> themselves back the /32 and re-assign themselves a /48 under the 
> generic PI assignment classification.

And nobody (I think :) would have a problem with that. Even a /45 would not
be looked strangely at, as they can JUSTIFY that amount of address space.
(3 offices, 5 very very large projects, reasonably believable IMHO) A /32,
is not though.

> TBH, the amount of address space which Afrinic allocated to themselves 
> is of very little technical importance.

I agree, relative to a 128bits of address space, a /32 is effectively
nothing.

> What's relevant is that they broke their own rules, which will damage 
> their reputation and the level of trust they have in their geographic
area.

Absolutely. Thanks for getting that out of my ramblings.

Greets,
 Jeroen