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

[AfriNIC-rpd] end-site assignment policy

McTim dogwallah at
Mon Sep 10 12:55:27 UTC 2007

On 9/10/07, Colin Alston <colin at> wrote:
> On 10/09/2007 11:54 McTim wrote:
> >
> > Where are you seeing this text?
> 5.1.1 (c) and (d) which is held for the aforementioned organizations
> by 5.7.

You are confused.  There is no 3 day text there. There is 12 month text there.

If folk don't announce the IP space in 12 months, do we want to set
back IPv6 deployment efforts by taking it away from them? I think not.

> The main thing here is that AfriNIC must be renewing these resources,
> and the same clause must apply to renewal (as per my reading of 5.7).

5.7 ONLY applies to folk who had a /35, and need supersizing.

> My point is that renewing a /32 allocation to someone that appears to
> show no interest in making use of it is quite a waste,

Do you really care about "wasting" a drop in the bucket?  A /32 is
miniscule in relation to the entire size of the v6 pool.

or at least
> there is no transparency in why these resources are being renewed and
> are still not (and have never been) announced by the. I *do* want
> these organizations to have IPv6 space, but I also want to see them
> using it otherwise it's just a farce.

Well, it's a stronger policy than in the IPv4 world, you can get IPv4
space and never announce it, and that's kosher.

> >
> > AFAIK, no RIR has this kind of language in their policy documents.
> >
> I'm sure there is at least some kind of language to suggest that
> requesting assignments without any apparent intention of making use of
> them is not condoned or tolerated.

Getting a v6 assignment without using it is perfectly ok, it's the
allocation one is
supposed to announce within a year.  Since there are no enforcement
policies, it has been happening in all regions.

Allocations are auto-magically renewed in most regions IIRC.


$ whois -h mctim

More information about the RPD mailing list