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

[AfriNIC-rpd] RE: [pdp-mg] Updated Version of IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal now Online

McTim dogwallah at
Wed Nov 10 06:37:11 UTC 2010


On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Graham Beneke <graham at> wrote:
>>> 6.1 The minimum allocation or assignment size for IPv4 will be a /27
>>> block (32 addresses).
> I see no useful reason for an RIR to allocate prefixes longer than /24. this time.

> Upstream providers will not accept announces of these prefixes and the
> announces will never reach the DFZ.

At the moment, yes.

Operationally they will never become
> globally reachable and thus be of no use.

There is speculation that folk will (under commercial) pressure start
to accept (not filter) longer prefixes at some point in the future due
to v4 scarcity.  That time is seemingly not now, but I would never say


> If there is a requirement for a /27 then it can only be obtained from an LIR
> as an assignment from a larger aggregated allocation.


>>  The maximum alocation or assignment size will
>>> be a /22 or 1024 addresses.
> I mentioned previously[1] that I do not think that this number is correct. I
> however won't oppose this proposal based on that.

Doh!, I had forgotten about that.  The previous number was /23, now
it's a /22.  Plus, I am re-reading the current text, and I do not find
the limit of 4 (four) allocations, so I think Douglas has sorted this

There will no longer be any "un-allocatable" under this policy, right Douglas?


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the RPD mailing list