[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       afrinic-rpd
Subject:    Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Draft Policy: Anycast Assignments in the AfriNIC region
From:       McTim <dogwallah () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-06-19 16:55:52
Message-ID: CACAaNxgyQbsJnbXLw0v-vFcDJSPNR3Ox2MeXicgypEBTY9uN6Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

All,


I understand the Anycast policy proposal was moved to last call today.

thanks for that, I know there is at least one African network operator
who will be able to
use their business plan when this policy is formalised.

On a related note, I understand there was some questions about why
this doesn't relate to IPv6>

Please see my mail from Nov below on that topic:



On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>

<snip>

> There was also support for adding IPv6 explicitly to this proposal,
> which I feel is not needed due to the fact that IPv6 additioanl
> allocations don't need to meet the 80% criteria and of course the much
> larger address space in v6.
>
> In any case, I am happy to add IPv6 to this proposal, but I need some guidance.
>
> Should these v6 blocks come from PA allocations or from separate
> blocks specifically reserved for the purpose?
>
> Should the assignment size in v6 be /48, or do we not need to specify
> an assignment size in IPv6??
>

Since I got no guidance, I made no changes.

I still think this is only a v4 issue and would not arise in v6, but
am happy to hear other views.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]