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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update

Graham Beneke graham-ml at
Thu May 14 08:07:41 UTC 2009

Hi Douglas

My thoughts inline:

Douglas Onyango wrote:
> a) Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the current
> policy, the new minimum allocation size of /23 (512 addresses) will be
> allocated to any LIR that requests for IPv4 resources. This is also the
> maximum allocation size, even though LIRs may request for more than a
> /23. No LIR may get more than 4 additional allocations once the
> Exhaustion phase has begun.

This is extremely restrictive and I think that we should rather just be
changing the minimum and maximum allocation sizes but keep it as a range:

On the one hand - a network that is running full native IPv6 will only
need a handful of IPv4 addresses to provide their core services dual
stacked and provide a NAT gateway to their users. A /24 is sufficient
for global BGP routability and LIRs should be able to request this if
this is all they require during the exhaustion phase.

On the other hand - there are a number of operators in the AfiNIC region
who use about /21 for just their backbone networks.

I would suggest that we define the minimum allocation as /24 and the
maximum allocation as /20 (this figure is up for discussion).

As Leo mentione - we should be considering the number of AfriNIC LIRs
when setting the limit on the amount of address space each may receive.
Perhaps one of the AfriNIC staff could provide details of the current
number of LIRs and the growth trend over the recent years.

> b) Together with the v4 allocation, AfriNIC shall allocate an IPv6
> address block in compliance with the current IPv6 allocation policy
> ( to the LIR
> (in case it doesn't have any).

I think that this puts the focus on the wrong aspects. We are trying to
drive IPv6 adoption are we not? It should not be an afterthought once
the IPv4 space has been allocated.

I would suggest rather - that all IPv4 space requests during the
exhaustion phase will only be accepted once the LIR has been allocated
(or has had an allocation approved) of IPv6 space under the current IPv6
allocation policy.

There is already plenty of IPv6 space that has been allocated but never
used. I think that LIRs MUST have IPv6 space and have a concrete
deployment plan before they can be considered for IPv4 space during the
exhaustion phase.

Graham Beneke
Apolix Internet Services
E-Mail/MSN/Jabber: graham at   Skype: grbeneke
VoIP: 087-750-5696                       Cell: 082-432-1873

More information about the RPD mailing list