Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
sfolayan at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 17:59:16 UTC 2013
On 24/01/2013 17:42, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> Hi Sunday,
> At 04:59 24-01-2013, Sunday Folayan wrote:
>>> That is the current status quo, under SM's policy this changes,
>>> requests for
>>> PI space will be directed through an LIR... and this is one of the
>>> points of concern I have with the new policy
>> SM, why do you want it that way? what additional value add is envisaged?
> There are several existing policies and there is this proposal. If the
> proposal is accepted it will change AFPUB-2005-v4-001. If people can
> get PI address space directly through the LIR under existing policies
> they will still be able to get PI address space if the proposal is
> The proposal cannot direct all requests for PI space through LIRs
> unless it changes several existing IPv4 address related policies.
> That's not the case.
> Section 2.10 of the proposal (removed in my edited copy) mentioned that:
> 2.10 Provider Independent IP Address Space
> Provider Independent (or portable) IP address space cannot be
> and can only be assigned by a RIR through an LIR. Provider
> Independent (PI)
> IP address space is expensive to route and might not be globally
> Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of IP address space by
> end user or LIR.
> Here's what is in Section 5.8 of AFPUB-2005-v4-001:
> "PI (or portable) space cannot be aggregated and can only be
> assigned by RIR
> through an LIR. PI space is expensive to route and might not be
> routable. Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of address
> space by
> the end user or LIR."
> My reading is that the text from Section 2.10 and Section 5.8 (the
> 2005 document) are identical. Taken together with all existing
> policies, the text could be read as PI space can only be received
> through a LIR. However, that's not the case or else nobody would have
> been able to receive PI space under AFPUB-2006-GEN-001.
Perhaps the hostmasters can shed some light here. Note that I prefer
what is simpler - allowing direct PI allocation instead of forcing it
through LIRs. ok, if deleted in your proposal.
> It is strange that since 2005 nobody has mentioned that this is a
Someone needs to be bitten before it is considered a bug ;)
More information about the RPD