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

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue May 3 17:54:40 UTC 2011

On May 3, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:

> Hi All,
> 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:
I think this policy should be adopted before Tanzania.

>> 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.
I do support this change, but, I do not feel that it requires taking the proposal
for another round in Tanzania and I would still support the proposal even
without this change.

>> 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.
I strenuously disagree with Andrew on this point. I think this clause is
vital to protecting African companies and the African peoples from
the exporting of addresses from AfriNIC service region. While it may
be somewhat unenforceable, I do not believe that is a reason not to
have a solid statement of the intent and desire of the community.

I think that Andrew's argument has been well and adequately presented
on the list and I do not believe that power point would enhance his
argument or mine. I think there remains sentiment in the community
in support of this point and I believe it to be vital to the continued
development of the internet in the AfriNIC service region.

>> 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 space.
I think that the paragraph is clear in its intent and needs to be vague in the
specifics because it directs the board to take unspecified action in the
event of unknown circumstances with the caveat that they must act in
the best interests of the community. Since both the required action and
the circumstances are by definition unknown, what clarification, exactly,
would be useful in this case?


More information about the RPD mailing list