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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online

Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda at
Tue May 3 14:49:48 UTC 2011

Hi David,

You wrote:


> >> Why would you give someone address space if its not for routing? 
> > In the past I have seen cases where people wanted unique 
> > addresses for numbering private networks, VPNs and so on.
> Yep.  It has been the case that other RIRs have indeed allocated longer 
> than /24 prefixes for this purpose.  However, I don't believe that is the 
> rationale for this policy (nor, IMHO, should it be -- private addressing 
> should no longer be used as a justification for IPv4 space).

I wasn't attempting to justify or support the proposal. I was answering the question.

> The implication of allocating longer than /24 PI is that a receiver of that 
> address will face increased connectivity challenges. 

100% agree.


> > IP addresses are for IP networks. Whether you and I will ever communicate
> >  with them is not important when the assignment criteria are needs based.
> Well, when assignment criteria are _exclusively_ needs based. If /27 
> becomes the new maximum prefix length, I suspect it would be ... nice 
> if the recipient were made to fully understand the implications of trying 
> to announce that prefix ("Death of the Internet predicted, MPEG 
> unavailable due to routing collapse").

Sure. It might be useful locally but the likelihood that a /27 will have good international is unlikely unless it contains a very important service.


More information about the RPD mailing list