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

[rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at
Fri Jan 29 01:11:18 UTC 2016

There are certain needs for IPv4 space that only require uniqueness, but
not routability.  For example, router IDs often need to be unique IPv4
addresses (even when only routing IPv6), but they don't need to be
announced to anyone.  To date, most requests under 4.10 have been for /24s,
and ARIN considers "we'd like to route this block on the Internet" to be
valid justification for needing a /24, so the policy allowing (but not
requiring) smaller allocations doesn't do any harm.  ARIN already has to do
non-classful rDNS delegation for blocks >/24, so I don't think the burden
there (if people actually choose to request smaller blocks) will be all
that significant.

I am not necessarily suggesting reserving *more* space: if you'd prefer you
could tighten up the eligibility requirements on some of the
already-reserved space.  I am only suggesting that completely exhausting
the AfriNIC IPv4 free pool, with no space left to allocate to new entrants
for any reason, would put African companies at a disadvantage to new
entrants in other regions, who all have some sort of space reserved for
that purpose.


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at>

> Hi Scott,
> On 28 January 2016 at 23:25, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at>
> wrote:
> > I would also suggest that at the very least the AfriNIC community
> consider
> > an addition to the soft-landing policy that sets aside an IPv4 block
> > dedicated to facilitating IPv6 deployment, by making IPv4 addresses
> > available for IPv6 translation technologies, dual stack DNS servers, etc.
> > Something like could be
> > implemented either by carving out a pool out of AfriNIC's existing
> > inventory, or by dedicating space newly redistributed from IANA for the
> > purpose.  Alternately, a RIPE/APNIC style "one block per network" soft
> > landing policy would accomplish a similar objective: making sure that
> future
> > new entrants can continue to receive enough IPv4 addresses to talk to the
> While I like the idea of promoting v6 deployment as we near
> exhaustion, I find the idea of further reserving the more space not
> very appealing. You must recall that the Softlanding has already
> reserved a /12 for unforeseen circumstances.
> Further, I am curious as to what motivated ARIN's choice to allocate
> /28-/24 block from the reserve in your policy
> I can only see this approach either breaking the Internet, as people
> drop your routes on account of size, or additional reverse delegation
> work being created for the RIR.
> Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list