Hi AlanL,
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Alan Levin wrote:
Vincent, many thanks for this.
btw, my name is Alan Levin, please don't confuse me with Andrew
Alston.
Noted.
Just for clarity, I am IN FAVOUR of ANY IPv6 PI policy.
I feel this process has dragged on far too long and I think it will
be a horrible decision to postpone it any further.
That's the same feeling I get from the list.
The comment you placed below - under the name Alan Levin - was
based on an email that relates to a compromise in order to get a
policy, and not my true position.
Thanks for the clarification. However, the comment has greatly
contributed to this discussion :)
-v
Sincerely,
Alan
On 13 Mar 2007, at 3:51 PM, Vincent Ngundi wrote:
Hi All,
Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we
have had so far.
So far, we have the following arguments:
(a) Andrew Levin (30.01.2007)
proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns
about the global routing table
(b) Frank Habitcht (30.01.2007)
was in agreement that there was need for PI assignments < /48
especially in the case of IXP's since the prefix would not appear
in the global routing table.
(c) Mark Elkins (01.02.2007)
Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique /
32 (which should be preserved to accommodate growth)
From the above points:
(b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should
allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.
as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become
an LIR.
In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it is.
Currently statistics:
* Yea (those in support of the policy) : 6
* Nay (those _not in support of the policy) : 1
Finally, I wish to encourage more members of the community to give
their views on this policy, or at least indicate whether they are
in favour of it or not.
Abuja is only 5 weeks away!
-v
On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I’m ok with all of this except for the following:
* The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can
justify it.
I’m happy with /48s, I’m even happier with bigger blocks, but
there should *NEVER* be a situation where the block is smaller
than this in the global routing tables. If the blocks can ever
be smaller than /48 in size it is going to create major BGP
filtering headaches.
Can this wording be clarified?
Many Thanks
Andrew Alston
TENET – Chief Technology Officer
_______________________________________________
resource-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
---------------------------------------------
Alan Levin
Tel: +27 21 409-7997
_______________________________________________
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
