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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Questions about IPv4 Allocation Policy AFPUB-2005-v4-001

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Wed Nov 13 13:03:17 UTC 2013

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Keshwarsingh Nadan
<keshwarsingh.nadan at> wrote:
> Dear Community,
> I realize that this isn't the proper list for this specific question, but
> since there isn't another active list to post to, I'm posting it here.
> I need the authors comment as well as members.
> Section 7.3 of the IPv4 Allocation Policy states the following:
> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all
> relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such
> documentation may include network engineering plans, subnetting plans,
> descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans.
> All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates
> and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
> Section 8.4 of the IPv4 Allocation Policy states the following:
> An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of all the
> address space currently allocated to it has been used in valid assignments
> and/or sub-allocations. A new allocation can also be made if single
> assignment or sub-allocation requires more addresses than those currently
> held by the LIR.
> Reservations are not considered as valid assignments or sub-allocations. It
> may be useful for internal aggregation to keep some IP blocks free for
> future growth. These internal reservations are however not counted as valid
> usage and must be assigned or sub-allocated before requesting for an
> additional allocation.
> AFRINIC will always try to allocate contiguous address ranges, allowing the
> LIR to minimise the number of route announcements it makes. However, it will
> not always be possible to allocate a range contiguous with the LIR's
> previous allocation.
> Based on above sections of the policy, I, LIR-AAA needs another allocation
> since I ran out of IP space for the following reasons:
> a) I provide hosted services such as accounting / crm / erp on a Software as
> a Service (SaaS) basis.
> b) I am utilizing more than 80% of my previous allocation in valid
> assignments, which is assigned to my infrastructure since the IP space is
> being
> used to provide SaaS based service.
> Business Model:
> - CLIENT-BBB leases / outsources hosted service from LIR-AAA.
> - CLIENT-BBB resells the leased / outsourced hosted services to their own
> client, CLIENT-CCC.
> - CLIENT-CCC resells the hosted services purchased from their supplier
> CLIENT-BBB to their own customer base and the public in general.
> For facilitating evaluation procedures, LIR-AAA exceptionally granted
> AfriNIC a remote access to its infrastructure though a live remote session
> since AfriNIC hostmasters primarily liaise with LIRs in the telco industry,
> AfriNIC needs to fully understand:
> - The business model.
> - Why the service requires a whole IP space.
> - How the service works.
> - Peak sessions.
> AfriNIC insists that in order for LIR-AAA to comply with the current policy,
> AfriNIC needs to establish the existence of the end-users, i.e. CLIENT-CCC
> customers. Information requested:
> - Name of companies.
> - Physical address.
> - Contact persons.
> - Email addresses.
> - Phone numbers.
> - Contact them if necessary.
> Everyone seems to interpret the policy in his/her own way. In short:-
> - Is AfriNIC allowed to request such information for evaluation purposes
> according the current policy based on my business model, i.e. offering SaaS
> based services?

Your Business Model is no relevant I think. The registrys discretion
is important in it work of managing IP address.

> - Is AfriNIC generally allowed to request such information for evaluation
> purposes according to the current policy ?

I will say yes If it is that the registry was not convince of your

We trust afriNIc to do good job as before and reason to ask these
informations are mosts likely OK.

> --
> Regards,
> Keshwarsingh
> This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
> represent those of my employers, either past, present or potential future.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list