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

[rpd] Anycast allocations and current policy

Jérôme Fleury jerome at
Sun Feb 8 22:56:33 UTC 2015


when applying for large anycast blocks as a LIR we've been told that
we could only get a /24, by AFPUB-2012-V4-001 policy.
I assume this is what you name the normal channels.
Do you mean that the Anycast policies apply only if you intend to use
a small portion of the /24 ?
I'm a bit confused by your reply.


On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Adam Nelson <adam at> wrote:
> Jérome,
> Thanks for participating.  Keep in mind that LIRs and end users can still
> apply through normal channels for IP space even if the purpose is Anycast.
> The Anycast policies provide another channel to Anycast deployments that
> might otherwise be difficult to get through the other channels - but those
> existing channels are still available.
> Cheers,
> Adam
> --
> Kili - Cloud for Africa:
> Musings:
> More Musings:
> About Adam:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at> wrote:
>> Hi Jerome,
>> There is a related policy awaiting board ratification which you may want
>> to look at and then propose an update through following the normal PDP
>> (policy development process)
>> Cheers!
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 7 Feb 2015 06:37, "Jérôme Fleury" <jerome at> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> I'm new to this mailing-list, so please pardon any misstep.
>>> While I have been searching discussions on this matter in this
>>> mailing-list, I have been unable to find an adequate answer.
>>> I'd like to discuss the relevance of AFPUB-2012-V4-001
>>> (
>>> In summary, it prevents companies operating anycast CDN (like mine)
>>> from requesting anycast allocations to Afrinic because allowing only a
>>> /24 per allocation is insufficient to meet our current expansion
>>> needs.
>>> Our service currently runs fully on anycast, and we use 4 times more
>>> anycast addresses than unicast ones. We could like to expand our
>>> service in Africa.
>>> While having policies to discuss anycast is very much needed and
>>> welcome, I don't agree with the following:
>>> "In addition, current anycast practice announces an entire /24.
>>> AFRINIC current IPv4 policy states that the minimum allocation size on
>>> initial allocation is a /22. To use a /22 for anycast when you
>>> potentially are only using a few addresses in the block is wasteful."
>>> - While it's true that a lot of anycast prefixes seen in the global
>>> routing table are /24s (for traffic-engineering purpose), this should
>>> not be considered as a basis for this policy. I can certify that a lot
>>> of anycast prefixes are more than /24s; for example, we advertise
>>> /20s.
>>> - Announcing "bigger than a /24 is wasteful" is not true in our case.
>>> When we advertise a /20 for anycast purpose, we make sure that each
>>> and every one of the addresses are used for production traffic. When
>>> you serve millions of websites on your infrastructure, I can assure
>>> you that you don't waste addresses.
>>> After this discussion from 2007
>>>, there hasn't
>>> been much further discussion since. The anycast world has changed a
>>> lot in the meantime and in my opinion this policy should be amended to
>>> reflect today's reality of anycast addressing.
>>> I welcome thoughts and comments.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list