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

[*full rant mode*]

My eye just fell on a very strange new allocation, apparently made under some
new rules in the AFRINIC region which seem to be very wasteful and very out of
sync with the rest of the world who are at least thinking a bit about address
conservation instead of just blowing address space like there is no tomorrow:

http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm#5 details:
8<--------------
5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
a) be an LIR;
b) not be an end site;
c) show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations in the
AfriNIC region.
d) show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the
AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the
allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system
within twelve months.

5.1.2. Initial allocation size

Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to
receive a minimum allocation of /32.
---------------------------------------------->8

Wow, so you make a new 'company' in 911 land and say "I am going to allocate a
single /48" and you get a FULL /32 even when you will never ever ever use it
or even are going to think about using it?

The first "organization" which is using this to waste space seems to be:

inet6num:       2001:42d0::/32
netname:        AfriNIC-IPv6-1
descr:          AfriNIC
descr:          RIR
country:        MU

Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network? 10-50? Are
they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going to have
a need for 65536 of those /48's?

Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough", but being
sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice slot in the routing
tables is a bit over done.


I hope that the other regions take this in mind too when (re)considering their
 address policies.

Giving out /48's or even a /40 to an organization that is in-effect an
end-site I can understand, especially when they can justify the need for that
amount of address space. But giving /32's to every single endsite that simply
asks for it is very very very far fetched. They will not even ever fill up a
/40 of address space even if they would have two sites (read: offices) in
every country in Africa, let alone 65536 sites. Such a waste.

Funnily later in the above document they point to HD ratios. What point is
that when the waste is already happened?


RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need must
justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is a really
really bad idea.

In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in Africa
and presto!

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070622/187691a4/attachment.sig>