Subject: RE: AfriNIC, ULA-C, & "why not just get PI space"

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 17:55:39 +0100

> those in the AfriNIC region who want globally unique, 
> registered space but do not plan to "announce the IPv6 PI 
> address space" have no method of getting any such space. if 
> anyone reads this differently than i do, please educate me.

Do the RIRs actually refuse to allocate addresses to organizations
outside their region? If not, then anyone in Africa who needs IPv6 PI
can simply go registry shopping.

Of course, the reason AfriNIC is *Afri* NIC is to support organizations
in Africa. As such, I'm sure it has mechanisms by which organizations in
Africa can influence AfriNIC policies.

There is really no need to worry about this sort of thing at a global
level. Besides, the IETF designs protocols, not RIR policy mechanisms.

--Michael Dillon

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alain Patrick AINA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:17:45 +0000

On Wednesday 27 June 2007 08:48:14 pm bill fumerola wrote:
> AfriNIC has implemented a PIv6 space policy[0]. part of it states:
>
> "* The 'end-site' must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6 provider
> independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that period,
> if not announced, the assigned IPv6 PI address space should be reclaimed
> and returned to the free pool by AfriNIC."
>
> the policy document[0] itself says "Open for Discussion" but:
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/policy.htm#policies
> afpol-v6200701  	IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites 
> 	13.06.2007  	Implemented
>
> ... lists it as implemented.

The status has been fixed. 

> those in the AfriNIC region who want globally unique, registered space
> but do not plan to "announce the IPv6 PI address space" have no method
> of getting any such space. if anyone reads this differently than i do,
> please educate me. i don't think they mean 'announce' to partner(s) or
> within intra-AS boundaries, but admittedly i haven't read their mail
> archives to see if this angle was ever brought up.

no.

> this leaves a few options like getting PA space from an LIR or becoming
> a LIR(?!) as an option of getting space for the purpose of unique local
> addressing, but the downside(s) to that seem too obvious to mention.
>
> you could also announce the PI or LIR block and just null route it on
> your edge, but i don't think that's the spirit of the policy and is a
> slap in the face to those trying to keep the IPv6 global routing tables
> tight & clean.
>
> so in the AfriNIC region, "why not just get PI space for what you want
> ULA-C for" isn't an option and the alternatives and workarounds aren't
> that clean.
>
> in that region there is a separate ULA-C policy[1] 'under discussion'
> (and others[2] submitted by the same person), but i think there's been
> general consensus on RIR lists and history on policies with global
> implications that says the outcome of an IETF decision one way or another
> on the fate of ULA-C (or another I-D that addresses similar needs perhaps
> out of a different prefix than ULA-*) is more desirable than individual
> RIRs acting prematurely or making policy based on proposed I-Ds.
>
> nothing prevents other RIRs from changing their policies later to have
> similar requirements. also, nothing indicates other RIRs are considering
> changing their policies in this direction now or in the future.

the PI policy was not developed and discussed to cover the ULA-C needs.
The ULA-C proposal did  not reach concensus in our region and the outcome of 
the IETF discussions is awaited. But nothing prevents the region for changing 
the PI policy.

--alain

---

From: bill fumerola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:53:45 -0700

> > archives to see if this angle was ever brought up.

please elaborate.

>>> changing their policies in this direction now or in the future.

this is not a slam at the afrinic decision and it is in the realm of the
RIRs to make/change policy such as requiring your allocate PIv6 space
to be announced to the DFZ. i brought it up as advice to this workgroup
to understand that the "drop ULA-C, people {could,should} just use PI"
argument may or may not hold water at any given place in space and time.

the IETF has the ability here (through delegation to IANA) to make sure
that IANA/RIRs have the ability to issue ULA-C prefixes, if they desire
to.

-- bill

---

From: "Alain Patrick AINA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 00:02:30 +0100

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:53:45 -0700, bill fumerola wrote
> > > archives to see if this angle was ever brought up.

that angle of things was not brought up during the discussions.

--alain