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

[AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Softlanding Proposal Update

Andrew Alston aa at
Fri Nov 27 18:01:57 UTC 2009

Personally I'm extremely opposed to this entire clause for the following

An African company that expands into European/American/Asian space now
needs another allocation, from another RIR, which:

a.) causes more deaggregation and more routes in an already congested
routing table
b.) wastes space because of multiple allocations and less efficient use
of space
c.) forces the African company to form relationships with RIR's outside
of their primary base of operations

The RIR's job as far as I am concerned is to allocate resources to
companies who have their primary presence in the RIR's designated
geographic region.  It is NOT to police where that IP space is used by
the company that it allocates it to.

It's a little like selling someone a car and telling them they may never
drive it across the border... 

Just my 2c


-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:28 PM
To: mje at; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Softlanding Proposal Update

At 05:23 AM 11/27/2009, Mark Elkins wrote:
>IPv4 Softlanding Proposal:
>Last paragraph on last page.....
>"None of these resources can be used outside of the African region"
>Would prefer this to read "No more than 10% of these resources can be
>used outside of the African region - and only then to connect back to
>resources within the African region".

I suggest:

   No more than 10% of these resources can be used outside of the 
AfriNIC region.

I don't think that we need to specify the "connect back".  It's fine 
if you want to keep that in.


rpd mailing list
rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list