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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Draft Policy: Anycast Assignments in the AfriNIC region

Walubengo J jwalu at
Wed Apr 18 10:32:35 UTC 2012


I still dont understand the problem...u say current minimum allocation from AfriNIC is a /22 while typically anycast service prodivers want to only use a /24?  What is wrong with getting the /22 and using the /24 portion or better still the full /22?

The other challenge you cite is underutilization  - when the service provider attempts to get more space? But then why cant the service provider not utilize the full /22 block for anycast services?  Am thinking /22 gives you 2^10 (1,024 hosts) while /24 gives u 2^8 (256 hosts) - am not understanding what would stop the anycast service provider from making full use of the 1,024 hosts.

plse explain.


--- On Wed, 4/18/12, McTim <dogwallah at> wrote:

From: McTim <dogwallah at>
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Draft Policy: Anycast Assignments in the AfriNIC region
To: "AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List" <rpd at>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 1:52 AM

Dear RPD,

Below is the proposal on Anycast I submitted to pdwg last week.

It is somewhat of a "strawman" in that it gives us a starting point
for discussion.

I look forward to your feedback.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

> ===
> Unique identifier:  AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01
> Draft Policy Name: Anycast Assignments in the AfriNIC region
> Authors:
> a)    Tim McGinnis | dogwallah at | ISC/PDWG Co-Chair
> b)    Mark J Elkins | <mje at  | Posix Systems - South Africa
> c)    Mauritz Lewies | <mauritz at  | Co-founder at
> Three6Five Network Solutions
> Submission Date: April 17 2012
> Related Policies: None
> Obsoletes: None
> Amends: AFPUB-2005-v4-001, AFPUB-2006-GEN-001,
> AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05
> 1.    Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
> Unless one is in charge of "critical infrastructure" in the AfriNIC
> region, an organization cannot get an allocation or assignment
> purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. I
> understand there are organizations that would like to use
> anycast/GRX for non-critical infrastructure in the region, but
> cannot due to policy limitations.
> In addition, current anycast practice announces an entire /24.
> AfriNIC's current IPv4 policy states that the minimum allocation
> size on initial allocation is a /22. To use a /22 for anycast when
> you potentially are only using a few addresses in the block is wasteful.
> Also, if an organisation uses some of its allocation (or assignment)
> for anycast services, it may not be able to justify the use of it's
> current allocation/assignment when requesting additional resources.
> 2.     Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
> This proposal allows the use of one (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast
> services from a PA allocation or end user assignment. These /24s
> will be assumed to be "fully utilised" by AfriNIC staff when
> considering utilisation for first allocation or for an additional
> allocation or assignment.
> 3.    Proposal
> 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 prefix for anycast
> or GRX purposes from an allocation or end-user assignment. These
> prefixes must be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or
> authoritative DNS servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786
> ( or for GPRS Roaming Exchange.
> These prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an
> organization applies for additional resources. The utilization
> criteria that apply to all IPv4 initial allocation or assignment
> requests shall be waived for anycast allocation or assignment requests.
> 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or
> sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the
> ===
rpd mailing list
rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list