Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online
ondouglas at yahoo.com
Tue May 3 10:31:39 UTC 2011
--- On Tue, 5/3/11, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> As per previous emails I need to raise concerns with
> aspects of this
> document though because these have already been raised time
> and again on
> this list, I would like to request discussion of these
> issues in Tanzania.
> Once again I submit the following points:
> > Exhaustion Phase 2
> > During this phase a minimum allocation/assignment size
> will be /27, and
> > the maximum will be /22 per allocation/assignment.
> To lower the minimum allocation size to a /27 is a self
> defeating objective.
> If I recall correctly, and someone from RIPE can let me
> know if I am wrong
> here, there is a proposal on the table at RIPE at the
> moment to take the
> minimum allocation size back up to a /24, because /27s will
> get filtered.
> To allocate /27 P.I space is to allocate blocks that cannot
> and will not be
> routed in the DFZ, as they WILL get filtered. There is also
> a severe danger
> of people applying for multiple blocks in short succession
> as their /27s
> deplete. It is globally accepted that a /24 is
> minimum announcable size in
> the DFZ, and I strongly believe that if an RIR is
> allocating space, even if
> the purpose is NOT for DFZ announcement, the possibility
> for such should
> remain so as to not make the space useless should the
> requirement change.
> Therefore I object to this and would plead with the
> community to change this
> from /27 to /24 in the above paragraph.
The minimum of /27 is supposed to help LIR/End Users during the transition phase with minimal wastage. Albeit, applicants have the option of requesting more than a /27 - e.g /24. So i see removing /27 as only encouraging wastage - (You must get a plate full of food regardless of whether or not you can finish it).
Also because i feel consensus has been built on this point i am reluctant to do anything about it.
> > AfriNIC resources are for the AfriNIC geographical
> region. For each
> > allocation or assignment made during the Exhaustion
> Phase, no more than
> > 10% of these resources may be used outside of the
> AfriNIC region, and
> > any use outside the AfriNIC region shall be solely in
> support of
> > connectivity back to the AfriNIC region.
> I object to the above paragraph, STRONGLY and VEHEMENTLY
> for all the reasons
> stated in multiple previous emails to this list. The
> clause is
> unenforceable, disadvantages African companies looking to
> globally expand,
> and will create serious enforcement and monitoring
> issues. For further
> details on my objection, please see list archives on this
> topic. I am also
> prepared to present at the AfriNIC policy meeting on this
> topic with a
> proper presentation should anyone wish it.
Yes it is true you raised arguments in email threads, and counter arguments were raised too. I am again inclined to believe that the bulk of the member are Pro this Paragraph and because all Policies are developed through Consensus, i will stay this too.....
> > 3.9 IPv4 Address Space Reserve
> > A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the
> Final /8. This
> > /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by
> AfriNIC for some future
> > uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is
> innovative and we cannot
> > predict with certainty what might happen.
> Therefore, it is prudent to
> > keep this block in reserve, just in case some future
> requirement creates
> > a demand for IPv4 addresses.
> > 3.9.2
> > When AfriNIC, can no longer meet any more requests for
> address space
> > (from the Final /8 or from any other available address
> space), the Board
> > may at its discretion and considering the demand and
> other factors at
> > the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever
> address space (or
> > part thereof) that may be available to AfriNIC at the
> time, in a manner
> > that is in the best interest of the community.
> This clause needs clarification, because "may be available
> to AfriNIC" is
> rather ambiguous, and I would like to see this
> reworded. I bring this up
> SPECIFICALLY because of the debate around legacy IP address
You only point out that the clause has a problem, you didn't point out the exactly problem.....perhaps some details would help.
This Paragraph was written in the spirit of trying to use this Policy to allocate/assign any address space that AfriNIC will have going forward without the need to write a fresh policy
More information about the RPD