Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] 15-Day Last Call Period: IPv4 Softlanding Policy Proposal
aalain at trstech.net
Sat Jul 10 15:55:11 UTC 2010
On Jun 26, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> 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 (www.afrinic.net/statistics/member_stats.htm) 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.
I don 't reasons to rush to adopt this policy and revisit it later.
I suggest that we prolong the discussions and investigate more for the adequate scenario. I am seeing something similar to mark's second point in the following format:
-Phase 1 : Status Quo
We continue with the current policy until we reach /x
-Phase 2: Allocation/Assignment for transition to IPv6
We use the policy as it with:
a minimum of /y
a maximum of /z
With reserve of /12
We will look at the stats and trends and get some values for X,Y,Z
Hope this helps
More information about the RPD