[ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

[Adiel A. Akplogan]

Hello Jeroen,

>[*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?

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.

>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
...

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. 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.

>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.

>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.

Please read http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200701.htm

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

I think you are confusing the IPv6 allocation to LIR document with PI
assignment document which in fact was a proposal until few days where
it was ratified by AfriNIC board (... but not yet implemented).

>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.

>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.

- a.