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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call: IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Wed Jun 23 14:03:40 UTC 2010

On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Auwal Tata wrote:

> Thanks MCTim, now somebody is actually thinking my direction. I raised
> this issue during the Afrinic meetings in Kigali. I said limiting an
> LIR to a /23 that will eventually subnetted and given out to endusers
> will be grossly inadequate. /23 only contains 2 /24s with just 254
> usable IPs how many end users can be accommodated with that. This will
> only encourage NATting. I dont suppose that exactly conforms with our
> cause.
> I believe some of us have this sentimental attachment  to IPV4 will
> not want to let go. I strongly think allocation of IPV4 should
> continue as is so it gets exhausted,

 The policy name is "Soft Landing..." and the motivations  are :

1- When we entered the exhaustion phase, We give chance to many to get IPv4 during the gradual transition  to  IPv6 and avoid that one or a few big ISPs justify the needs and take the /8 away

2- We have reserve for unforeseen future  which  i see may include upcoming IPv6-based provider and all the NAT-PT variants.......  and  who knows 

3- Promote IPv6 deployment(the policy add IP6 allocation requirements...)

Hope this helps


> then people will realise how much
> they need to move to IPV6.
> Tata
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM, McTim <dogwallah at> wrote:
>> All,
>> I'm going on safari to USA soon, and will be unable to participate in
>> policy discussions until August, so here is my preemptive reaction to
>> the upcoming last call:
>> I must object quite strenuously to this policy and to it's being put
>> to Last Call on both policy and process grounds.
>> Policy objections:
>> 1. It aims to promote adoption of v6 by trying to lengthen the
>> lifetime of IPv4.  This seems contradictory to me.  By making v4 last
>> longer, we are only retarding the growth of IPv6
>> usage.
>> 2. The stated objectives of all RIRs are Conservation, Aggregation and
>> Registration.
>> See slide 33 of
>> This policy negates 2 of those objectives.   It actively promotes
>> deaggregation by setting an artificially low maximum allocation size.
>> Currently our maximum allocation size is a /10.  This policy limits
>> LIRs to a /23 in the exhaustion phase, thus mandating the announcement
>> of multiple /23's.  This does not limit routing table growth, instead
>> it encourages it.
>> In terms of conservation, the intended consequence of this policy is
>> to reserve a /12 for future use, which is an idea I support.  However,
>> the UNINTENDED consequence of this policy is to reserve the majority
>> of the last /8, by "locking up" most of the 16 million IPs of the last
>> /8.
>> quoting GB:
>> "You limit each LIR to a /21 of addressing resources. That provides
>> for 7680 (excluding the reserved /12) LIRs to obtain maximum
>> allocations. AfriNIC currently has 1009 members and a growth rate of
>> less than 100 members per year[1]. This means that at the end of 5
>> years 80% of our final /8 will be locked up and un-allocatable under
>> this policy."
>> Conservation is one thing, however making a large portion of the /8
>> "un-allocatable" as an unintended consequence is not only overly
>> conservative, it is absurd and bad policy making IMHO.  In other
>> words, while trying to extend the lifetime of v4 in this region, we
>> are making it much shorter artificially!!
>> The response I got to this objection at he meeting is that "none of us
>> know what the environment will be in the future".  While this is
>> correct, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the current
>> growth rate of LIRs will not change substantially due to consolidation
>> in the ISP market.  Even if we quadrupled the number of LIRs in 2
>> years, we would still be "locking" a substantial portion of the last
>> /8.
>> While my crystal ball may be just as foggy as others, in the
>> theoretical situation where each of the existing LIRs (~1000 now and
>> approaching 1500 in 3 years time) has gotten all of their possible
>> allocations AND demand by endusers for IPv4 is still high, then there
>> is only one possible outcome (unless we change this policy at some
>> point).  That outcome is a surge in demand for PI (EndUser) blocks.
>> Both Aggregation and Conservation depend upon LIRs requesting
>> resources they need.  This is our mantra (some of our critics call it
>> our "religion" see Milton Muelller).  We are changing that due to the
>> perception (not the reality) of a shortage of IPv4 blocks in this
>> region.  While it still holds true for v6, we are shooting ourselves
>> in the v4 foot.
>> On process, I just didn't see the consensus that the PDP-MG did in the
>> room or on the list on this one.  Points out that we do indeed need a
>> new PDP.  But that one is for another day ;-)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list