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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
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?


-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of
Ernest - (AfriNIC)
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Sunday Folayan
Cc: sm+afrinic at; Guy Antony Halse; rpd at
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per the policy AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 (that superseded Clause 5.8 of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

More information about the RPD mailing list