[rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

[Douglas Onyango]

Hi Scott,
In this case, I think adding v6 deployment as an eligibility
requirement should suffice?
Whether it's on the first allocation/assignment or on subsequent ones
can be discussed.

Regards,

On 29 January 2016 at 04:11, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>> On 28 January 2016 at 23:25, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>> 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 https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 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
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10
>>
>> 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,
>
>



-- 
Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
UG: +256 776 716 138