Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
Adiel A. Akplogan
adiel at afrinic.net
Fri May 15 09:06:16 UTC 2009
Hello Douglas an all,
On 15-May-09, at 12:08 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> I am calling on Alain to help with the stat analysis for the current
> usage trends vs our assignment policy.
an up to date analysis of the allocations trend for the past
10 years and an updated version of the document available at: http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm
will be circulated soon. In the mean time some raw data can
be accessed at:
> I will incorporate the new definitions.
> The version on the Afrinic site is not current, please use the copy
> on the mailing list, doesn't have mention of critical
> infrastructure, we removed it as we found it infeasible to make
> allocation to critical infrastructure from the the /16 we are
> Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329
> If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.
> --- On Thu, 5/14/09, SM <sm at resistor.net> wrote:
> From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
> To: "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 5:18 PM
> Hi Douglas,
> At 06:19 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> > Correct, its the four allocations in the exhaustion phase
> here....because the proposal cuts from the current allocation phase
> into the Exhaustion phase, the "Additional" word i believe is not
> I made a mistake when I wrote the question. It should be "Why"
> instead of "Which". As my question was not answered, I'll ask it
> My question is about whether the aggregate allocation (one + four)
> will allow equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs. To
> put it differently, how did you reach these numbers?
> Leo and Graham commented on setting the limit for IPv4 address space
> that can be allocated during the Exhaustion phase. I believe that
> we are asking similar questions.
> > My definitions contains the following.......
> > (c) New LIR´s A new LIR is defined as being an organization which
> has recently become a member of AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned
> or allocated any IPv4 address space.
> It's better not to use "recently"? You are proposing a policy that
> AfriNIC will have to implement. If the policy is unclear, AfriNIC
> will have to interpret the intent and that may cause problems.
> I suggest a change to the definitions:
> (b) Existing LIR´s An existing LIR is defined as being an
> organization that
> assigns address space to 'end-users' and who has already been
> assigned or allocated
> IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.
> (c) New LIR´s A new LIR is defined as being an organization that
> assigns address
> space to 'end-users' and who is a member of AfriNIC but has not
> been assigned or
> allocated any IPv4 address space prior to the Exhaustion phase.
> There is a definition for Critical Infrastructure Provider.
> However, there is no mention of them in the policy. Are they
> covered by the Soft landing policy?
> "A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8
> pool. This
> /16 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AfriNIC for some
> future uses,
> as yet unforeseen."
> I suggest using "reserved" instead of preserved.
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD