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

[AFRINIC-rpd] policy amendment proposal

David Conrad drc at
Mon Nov 26 23:24:08 UTC 2012


On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> As I stated on previous drafts, my concern is that this opens the policy to all new ICANN sanctioned TLDs which is a great way to dispose of all IPv4 freepool in the AfriNIC region in relatively short order given the incredible rate at which ICANN plans to start handing out vanity TLDs very soon now.

Where "incredible rate" = maximum (at least currently) of 1000 new TLDs per year of which only an (arguably) unfortunately small number are requested from organizations based in the AfriNIC region.

Out of curiosity, what is the current /24 consumption rate at AfriNIC?

> It would also take IPv4 space away from uses such as IPv6 transition technologies.

If this is a concern, perhaps a policy should be proposed that limits further IPv4 allocations to those applications that are in support of IPv6 transition technologies?

> I would support the policy if it were limited to ICANN sanctioned root services and ccTLD services, but given the coming onslaught of make-icann-money-fast gTLDs, I cannot support it as currently crafted.

Basing policy on whether you personally like how the IPv4 address space is going to be used is probably not the best idea. If anycast for top-level domain service is justification for IPv4 addresses, it does not seem appropriate to me for AfriNIC (or any RIR) to make a distinction based on the particular string that will be used for that TLD.


P.S. I don't get the "ICANN sanctioned root services" as justification -- it isn't like there are going to be more than maybe one new IPv4 prefix allocated for root service (when "D" finally renumbers out of 128.8/16). What is rationale for this particular justification?

More information about the RPD mailing list