RE: [sig-policy]RE: [sig-ipv6]Let's restart discussion about RIPE-261 [l
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The issues are related to RIR reorganization, such as the
>> one we just had with LACNIC and the one we are expecting
>> with AFRINIC. If a country changes RIRs, it is no longer
>> part of the summary it used to be, resulting in new
>> assignments being made out of the prefix of the new RIR
>> and address space fragmentation.
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> In general this did not happen with LACNIC. ARIN had been
> allocating IPv4 space out of 200 /8. The remainder of the
> /8 was transferred to LACNIC at activation.
Good thinking in the first place. However, you have not been allocating
on a per-country basis, have you? That's more or less what we are
talking about:
> Gert Doering wrote:
> - As a technical reason: people want to be able to filter IPv6
> prefixes by region, like "I only have one uplink that provides me
> with US connectivity, so there's no need to carry any US prefixes
> in my routing table, I just point a summary down that line".
I do see a lot of value in country aggregates as well as in continent
aggregates.
> In regards to AfriNIC, ARIN has tried to allocate out of
> a block for just AfriNIC for v4. ARIN requested a separate
> /23 for v6 but was refused by ICANN/IANA.
The way I see it, any changes you (the RIRs) want to be made to the way
addresses are delegated to you by ICANN/IANA are going to require some
political lobbying (regardless of what you decide to do is the CAP, a /8
or so per RIR as per Gert, or my system).
This kind of process does not happen often, and I sense you are about to
go for it. The point I am trying to make is: while you're at it,
consider using the opportunity to include some reasonable aggregation.
Michel.