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

[AfriNIC-rpd] 15-Day Last Call Period: IPv4 Softlanding Policy Proposal

Mark Elkins mje at
Sat Jun 26 07:36:25 UTC 2010

On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:27 -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Fri 6/25/2010 2:49 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> > This policy apparently reached consensus during the face-to-face 
> > meeting. I was unfortunately unable to attend and I still have a concern:
> Sorry you couldn't make it.  It was a very good meeting overall, IMO.

Though I do think more time could be spent on the Policy section of the

> > On 25/06/2010 20:16, Vincent Ngundi wrote:
> >> a) The minimum allocation or assignment size for IPv4 will be a /24
> >> block (256 addresses). The maximum alocation or assignment size will be
> >> a /23 block (512 addresses). No LIR or End User will receive more than 4
> >> allocations or assignments during the Exhaustion Phase.
> >
> > I have previously provided a set of calculations and proposed a 
> > maximum allocation limit that may far more appropriate.
> This was discussed at one point during the policy discussion in Kigali, 
> FWIW.  Others may remember better than I do the specifics of that 
> discussion, but...
> > I would be interested to see the resource planning calculation that 
> > allowed us to arrive at a limit of /23.
> >
> > Limiting allocations to such a tiny value makes applying for IPv4 
> > space virtually pointless. We might as well reserve the whole /8 and 
> > not just the last /12. It will have the same effect...
> I don't think the entire /8 would be tied up and unusable.  As best I 
> can tell, this policy, if implemented as written, will have the result 
> of rationing medium and large ISPs from continuing to acquire new IPv4 
> space for assignment to their customers after they've received four 
> /23s, which in turn will encourage those ISPs' larger customers to go to 
> AfriNIC directly to get space under end user policies.  This will result 
> in more organizations interacting with AfriNIC directly, and less 
> aggregation within the last /8 than would occur without this policy.

It was pointed out - if you take the total number of members as being
about 1000 ( and gave each
member four /23's - there would still be lots of space left.

Then again - this policy will probably only be in effect in about 3
years time (minimum 2 years),

It may make sense before then to re-visit the policy and either:-

1 - Change the '/23' to something like a '/22' (or '/21') - leaving
everything else as is....


2 - Change the '/8' policy to only kick in when - using the existing
policies - either an allocation or assignment will touch the last
'/10' (or '/11')  of (contiguous?) space left of this last '/8', deny
that request and proceed with the policy as is.

...but the fundamentals are pretty much fine.

Leaving this policy as is for 12 or 18 months will help the crystal ball
become clearer. Changing some small parts of this policy (fine tuning)
should not be such a challenge as it has been getting this particular
policy into place. I still thus wish it to go through as is for now -
unless someone were to add a 'fine-tuning' clause in order to be able to
implement the suggestions made above.

  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa.  e.164 VOIP ready
 /| /|       / /__       mje at  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list