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

[AfriNIC-rpd] AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 and Anycast

McTim dogwallah at
Thu Apr 5 19:48:03 UTC 2012

Hi graham,

On Thursday, April 5, 2012, Graham Beneke wrote:

> Hi McTim
> On 27/03/2012 17:06, McTim wrote:
> > If you are doing Anycast and (only anycast or mostly anycast) for
> > non-critical infra, then you can't meet the 24%/50% requirements for
> > usage.  Furthermore, you can't get additional space because you won't
> > have used the majority of your previous allocation /assignment.
> >
> > I think we do have an issue here, that being that our policies don't
> > allow folks to pursue a certain biz model/networking technology
> > without lying to our hostmasters.  We should fix this, or at least
> > have a formal policy proposal to do so, and talk about it using the
> > PDP.
> I think that the issue is a little broader than just anycast. There are
> a handful of scenarios where BGP engineering trumps the requirements for
> aggregated allocations.
ACK. Not all of them rise to the level of having a special policy however.

> I recently had a requirement for a separate /24 in order to implement
> GRX[1]. The prefix was to be publicly advertised but with a different
> policy to the existing blocks held by the LIR. The LIR did not qualify
> for this allocation due to the fact that they had recently been
> allocated a large block that was mostly unassigned.
If I understand correctly, they could have used one of their allocated /24s
for this, no?



> The policy probably needs to be written to account for these
> requirements as well.
> [1]
> --
> Graham Beneke


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list