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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jan 22 20:01:54 UTC 2013

It seems to me that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.5 are virtually identical and should be consolidated into a single
combined definition of the interchangeable terms LIR and ISP.

The definition in 2.6 is utterly vague and not necessarily accurate. I have, for example, been an end-user of
many community networks with which I had no legal or commercial relationship.

The wording in 2.8 which claims that a delegation to an ISP is an assignment and not an allocation seems
incorrect and should be moved to 2.7 since ISP and LIR are essentially the same in this regard.

2.10 -- Why does PI space have to be assigned through an LIR? Why not support end-users being able
to get PI space directly from the RIR? I know RIPE-NCC does not do this, but ARIN, LACNIC, and APNIC
all support direct PI assignments.

7.1 --

While I think /22 is valid for minimum allocation, if you take my suggestion to allow direct assignments,
the minimum assignment size should probably be /24.

Enumerating each of the RIRs seems like a potential time-bomb. What happens if another RIR is
added and nobody remembers to update this document? Why not just collectively refer to them as
the various RIR Whois databases?

9 -- The sub-allocation window should probably also apply to assignments.

9.1(b) is indecipherable to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
As near as I can tell, under 9.1(a)+9.1(b) a new LIR can never allocate anything.


On Jan 22, 2013, at 07:45 , sm+afrinic at wrote:

> Hello,
> This proposal is about IPv4 address allocations and assignments in the AfriNIC service region.  It incorporates the experience gained in allocating IPv4 addresses since 2006.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy<AfriNIC-IPv4-allocation-01.txt>_______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list