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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Section 3.5.2 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 (Re: Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02)

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Wed May 4 17:20:55 UTC 2011

At 13:28 03-05-2011, Andrew Alston wrote:
>In section 3.5.1, in the paragraph:
>Exhaustion Phase 2
>During this phase a minimum allocation/assignment size will be /27, and
>the maximum will be /22 per allocation/assignment.
>I believe that the /27 should be modified to be /24, this is in order to
>avoid pollution of the routing table and avoid the complexities
>surrounding sub /24 assignments that will not be globally routable
>because of global filtering.

James Blessing mentioned that "Whilst it may seem like a good idea to 
reduce the allocation size, many ISPs filter at the /24 level (for 
various reasons) and this will cause severe reach-ability 
issues".  McTim mentioned that "if ppl ONLY want a /27, we CAN give 
them that size prefix of it is not intended to be routed".  Leo 
Vegoda pointed out that "in the past I have seen cases where people 
wanted unique addresses for numbering private networks, VPNs and so on".

Graham Beneke said the following:

   "There were a number of queries about this in Johannesburg. We reached
    consensus by surrender rather than true consensus."

That's called "consensus by exhaustion".

Andrew Alston stated that "it is globally accepted that a /24 is 
minimum announcable size in the DFZ".  I gather that there is 
consensus on that statement.

My recommendation is to change the minimum allocation/assignment size 
in Section 3.5.2 from /27 to /24.  If you have strong concerns about 
this, you can always write a new proposal to update that section.

S. Moonesamy
Interim co-chair, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group 

More information about the RPD mailing list