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

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

Graham Beneke graham at
Wed Feb 9 20:31:28 UTC 2011

On 09/02/2011 20:04, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> Correct. IXPs are one exception. I am willing to accommodate other
>> similar cases in the proposal.
> I can think of a LOT of exceptions.  Take for example the following (and I
> admit this is a very specific example, but it highlights the issue)

I have several exceptions on networks that I deal with too:

* I have customers within my IP space who *by choice* wish to only be 
announced to certain peers and not to my transit providers. Reasons for 
this include costs and limited services areas (like in Andrew's IRC 

* In other instances there are global multi-stakeholder networks that 
require unique global addressing but do not route their packets via 
public interconnects. These routes will never appear anywhere on the DFZ 
but are very much in use.

* The third case is when a small (largely private) network wishes to 
interconnect with a large public network. Announcing RFC1918 space into 
the routing table of the large network is simply not feasible - the risk 
of address collisions is very high. Unique global addressing is required 
but routes are only exchanges between these two entities.

I think its worthwhile getting a little more strict on enforcing the 
existing requirements for usage of addresses issues by the RIR's.

I'd be interested to see the projected impact for AfriNIC though since 
our current pools of resources are likely to only dry up after the world 
is deep in IPv6 land.

Graham Beneke

More information about the RPD mailing list