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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2

Adiel A. Akplogan adiel at
Fri May 15 09:06:16 UTC 2009

Hello Douglas an all,

On 15-May-09, at 12:08 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote:

> SM,
> 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:

will be circulated soon. In the mean time some raw data can
be accessed at:


- a.
> 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  
> reserving.
> Regards,
> 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> wrote:
> From: SM <sm at>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
> To: "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at>
> Cc: rpd at
> 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  
> misplaced
> 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  
> again:
> 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.......
> [snip]
> > (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.
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list