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

[Douglas Onyango]

The point in having a minimum of /27 is to cater for people who need address space only to inter operate networks (v4<==>v6). These people don't need large blocks of v4 to do this and i think it unwise to just give it away......no one is being forced to take this minimum...if they can justify larger blocks.....they can be given

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

Yes, this is correct.... by removing the limit of 4 blocks per member in the exhaustion phase, we do away with the possibility of having address space locked up and unusable...which is the problem you highlighted in your recommendation......




Douglas Onyango | +256(0712)981329
Life is the educators practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was wrong.


--- On Wed, 11/10/10, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] RE: [pdp-mg] Updated Version of IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal now Online
> To: "AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 9:37 AM
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Graham Beneke <graham at apolix.co.za>
> 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.
> 
> 
> Agreed...at 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
> "never".
> 
> :-)
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >
> >>  The maximum alocation or assignment size will
> >>>
> >>> be a /22 or 1024 addresses.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 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 afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>