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

[AfriNIC-rpd] end-site assignment policy

Mark J Elkins mje at
Mon Sep 10 14:28:16 UTC 2007

Vincent Ngundi wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:55 PM, McTim wrote:
>> On 9/10/07, Colin Alston <colin at
>> <mailto: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.
> I think he meant the number of days before the 12 month period expires.
>> 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.
> I agree with McTim.
>>> 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.
> (a) I think what's most important is finding ways of encouraging
> people to deploy v6 and that should be not only the onus of AfriNIC
> (and other RIR's) but also every one of us.
> (b) And yes, there's an issue of wasting here. If any resource is NOT
> being used without a valid reason, then that IMHO amounts to wasting.
> (c) Well, one may look at a /32 as a drop in the bucket, but I guess
> that was the same scenario when IPv4 came. Look at the situation we
> are in now! Is the current situation (read onset of IPv6 deployment)
> _relatively the same as it were when we first started using IPv4?
> (d) We need to develop policies that will help utilise Internet
> resources, that's the whole idea (correct me if I'm wrong)....policies
> that will be emulated by other RIR's.
> (e) Colins is right, the IPv6 PA Allocation policy doesn't address the
> issue of "not-complying-with-the-policy". So in such a scenario,
> AfriNIC has no mandate to reclaim the used space and as you put it,
> "the Allocation(s) are auto-magically renewed". This would be a good
> time for the community to revise this policy. Sad that any changes may
> only be effected sometime in May next year :-(.
> The " Policy for IPv6 PI Assignment for End-Sites " reads in part:
> "... The 'end-site' must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6
> provider independent address space within twelve (12) months. After
> that period, if not announced, the assigned IPv6 PI address space
> should be reclaimed and returned to the free pool by AfriNIC.... "
Currently - if AfriNIC was to reclaim the /32, as there is currently no
fee involved - it can immediately be re-issued again. No financial
penalties. Maybe thats not right?

I'd love all sorts of schemes to get people to...
 (i) get themselves address space
 (ii) announce the space
 (ii) deploy services that use the space

I don't think "Name and Shame" is the right way to get people to do this

I'd also like to see something that encourages people to make sure that
/48 PI address space is routable :-)

  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

More information about the RPD mailing list