[address-policy-wg] Re: [afripv6-discuss] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
BONGO Abdoulkadri
kader.bongo at esmt.sn
Thu Jun 28 12:03:07 CEST 2007
Hi, Is there a problem if Afrinic come back on this /32 allocation ? If yes, tell Jeroen (and all the community), they will understand ; if realy not and if there is no other reason (like numerical justify values ) let's go in this way. It's just a point of vue. Regards Jeroen Massar wrote: >Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: >[..] > > >>>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? >>> >>> >>I think you have missed the point a) which says "be an LIR". So you must >>already be an LIR (and go through the LIR setup process) to get IPv6 >>allocation from AfrINIC. >> >> > >Is it that difficult to become an LIR then? Last time I checked it >simply means having a registered company in a country and paying the >bills. For the rest, nothing policy wise will stop one from becoming one. > > > >>>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? >>> >>> >>You can not take AfriNIC own allocation case to illustrate your >>assertion here >> >> > >Why not? It is clearly the first block that has been using this policy. > >Some other people mentioned that you might have been using the "Critical >Infrastructure" policy, but clearly you are not, otherwise you would >have mentioned that, but you did not. > >Also even that policy mentions that a /32 is the maximum size and not >the default, meaning that one still has to justify that address space. > > > >>We have allocated that bloc to our own Infrastructure (which has three >>locations to be connected together) so each with its own /48. >>Further to that we have other IPv6 Internal projects which will >>probably require several /48. >> >> > >So you allocate 65536 /48's because you have *three* offices and maybe >some "big projects". I don't see why those big projects require the need >for individual /48's. Reminder: a /48 is 65536 /64's and in total that >contains several millions of /128's to be used for addressing. > >Under that premise, is every website hosted by a virtual hoster also >getting their own /48? That will be a huge waste of address space when >you justify it like that. I sincerely hope that that is not the >justification that AfriNIC is using, as when that is the case it is >really disproportionate to the rest of the world. > > > >>As RIR I think we are in the position to evaluate our own need >>before making an allocation and if it was made be sure that is >>after careful evaluation. >> >> > >I wonder how 'careful' this evaluation was and I am seriously doubting >any further 'evaluation'. Seeing that three (small) offices and some >unspecified projects > >A /45 (8 /48's) would have been correctly justified by the above, but a >/32 (65536 /48's) is really not. > >That you want a globally routable prefix and your own chunk of space is >fine, but don't waste (not waist) the address space. > > > >>>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 don't see the waist. >> >> > >You don't see a waste of 65500 /48's which can otherwise really be used >by the new PI policy which your membership has voted on and setup? wow. > >Why does that PI policy exist when one is going to give out /32's for >small sites anyway? And yes AfriNIC is a small site. Now if you had more >than 200 offices and thousands of employees or what about real customers >who are people and users themselves, then a /32 might be justified, but >in this case, far from. > >[..] > > >>>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. >>> >>> >>That is what we do. You can not have such affirmation based on a single >>case. >> >> > >Thus you admit that the justification was wrong, but just because you >made a mistake once (which you can still easily turn back btw as the >prefix is not in use yet, or just chunk it down to a /45) it can't >really be called a mistake? > > > >>>In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in >>>Africa and presto! >>> >>> >>You won't get it like that. >> >> > >Clearly you can, otherwise that /32 you have now would not be there >would it not? > >Greets, > Jeroen > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >afripv6-discuss mailing list >afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]