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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01

Andrew Alston aa at
Mon Feb 28 21:52:57 UTC 2011

Hi Tim,

As per my previous email, yes, it does, clause 3.5.2 lowers the minimum allocation size to a /27, which I think is hugely problematic.



-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:22 PM
To: Stacy Hughes
Cc: rpd at
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01

Dear IP Goddess,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Stacy Hughes <ipgoddess.arin at> wrote:
> Esteemed Colleagues,
> I must speak in opposition to this proposal.
> First, I am philosophically opposed to soft landing proposals in general.
>  When the party is over, it's time to go home.  We don't get 5 more minutes
> or more birthday cake.

Have you ever been to a 1st graders birthday party???....they get the
5 more minutes AND more cake...I experienced this first hand a few
days ago ;-/

  Incorporation of and transition to IPv6 is the way
> forward, and necessary for all of us.

Full ACK

> I especially disagree with direct assignments or allocations of IPv4 space
> in subnets of longer prefix lengths than /24.

Does this proposal do that?  If so, I must have missed that in this iteration.


"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

More information about the RPD mailing list