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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Wed Feb 9 17:41:30 UTC 2011


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at> wrote:
> I have concerns about this policy, since as has been stated in various other
> discussion forums, there are several reasons to have so called "live"
> (non-rfc1918) space that is not announced in the routing tables but is
> actively in use.

Correct. IXPs are one exception. I am willing to accommodate other
similar cases in the proposal.

> Also, at which point are you evaluating the routing tables?  I can point to
> several instances where space is "partially" announced (within a geographic
> area, yet not propagated globally).  The space is completely valid and being
> utilized, but factors preclude its global announcement.

That is why time from issue to announcement has been defined.

> This proposal also makes no provision for the handling of so called legacy
> address segments, which would have to be dealt with as a separate issue.

It handles legacy IPv4.
2.1 - 2.4 clauses cover for these scenario.
Those are in fact the key targets for the proposal.


More information about the RPD mailing list