Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
alston.networks at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 12:48:54 UTC 2013
Hi Ernest, PDP Members,
I want to clarify something.
In the event of a new policy that conflicts with an older policy, is there a
de-facto state of the newer superseding the older?
I.E if we implemented this new policy where it conflicts with the current
policies, would it automatically supersede them?
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of
Ernest - (AfriNIC)
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Sunday Folayan
Cc: sm+afrinic at elandsys.com; Guy Antony Halse; rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
Sunday Folayan wrote thus on 1/24/13 9:59 PM:
>> 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.
AFRINIC currently issues IPv4 PI space directly to end-user organizations
per the policy AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 (that superseded Clause 5.8 of
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD