Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[policy-wg] Policy proposal: IPv4 allocation to End Users

McTim dogwallah at
Fri Apr 29 22:08:02 UTC 2005

Hi again,

On 4/28/05, Gregory Massel <gregm at> wrote:
> > Because they don't qualify for becoming LIR. But do need
> > their own IP block for justifiable reason.
> I would like to see more clarity on what constitutes a "justifiable reason."

If the community wants to encourage use of public addressing in
Africa, then "I want to use public IPs but am not a big enough ISP to
become an LIR" is reason enough in my book.

This allows them to support AfriNIC financially, control their own
space and connect customers using public IPs.

> I agree that critical infrastructure is one such reason.

Here is my paraphrasing/reading of the "CI" clause:

CI may not fit in the criteria of /25 in use and immediate need of 50%
of prefix, but they may need/want PI, and as CI, they will be an
exception to the general rule.

The 2 exceptions are clearly defined. However, we should be open to
the idea of adding more categories to this list in future if needed. 
Some consider Google/Akamai, etc as CI as well.
> I feel that it would be of much better for both the applicant and AfriNIC if
> it was clearer what justifications are reasonable. This would save both the
> applicant and AfriNIC from spurious applications and claims of unfair
> treatment.

It is generally useful to make policies a bit vague on purpose to
allow the AfriNIC Hostmasters latitude. This one is specific enough on
"justification" IMO, especially since /25 & 50 are hard limits.

If I was Hostie, this would be my interpretation: "IXP's get /24 PI
space if they meet the definition of IXP in the policy, cctld's get it
if they want it."

Of course, the word allocation is used throughout, when "assignment" is more 
appropriate (unless I missed smt). I would ask for this change.

I agree with Alan, I think it is useful and generally support it.  It
is also quite skillfully written in re: balancing competing goals of
aggregation and conservation while taking into consideration the state
of the market/AfriNIC's need for sustainable growth/CI "special"
needs, etc.

Thanks Mark!


nic-hdl:      TMCG

More information about the RPD mailing list