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

[rpd] AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT02

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Mon Feb 15 06:13:53 UTC 2016

Hi Owen, 

Sorry for taking a while to reply.

See comments inline

>An LIR should not have been assigned addresses, but strictly allocated.
>The previous definition (LIR) is correct. However, you added assigned in this paragraph for reasons passing understanding. Assignments are not eligible for further delegation, but allocations are. An LIR should receive an allocation where an end user receives an assignment.

Agreed on this point, we can amend accordingly.

>I think the intended outcome is: “A member, whether existing or new, who at the time of application had no IPv4 resources registered to them in any of the existing RIR databases.”

Agreed - though we may need to wordsmith a bit to ensure this covers legacy space, but your definition is simpler.

>As much as I like the 2-year clock, I think it is probably too short and suggest something larger than a /13 may be desirable if we want this to be meaningful. I propose a /10.

2 Years was kind of a minimum, we’ve never to my knowledge had more than 128 new members in a single year (open to correction on this), meaning a /13 actually gives us 2 years if we double the new member rate, realistically it gives us 4 years and I think that’s sufficient without locking up to much space into infinitum.  Curious to hear what the rest of the list says and will also wait for the co-authors to weigh in on this point.

>*	Additional and Reclaimed Space — All IPv4 address blocks received
>	by AfriNIC regardless of source after implementation of this policy.

Your wording makes sense and I don’t see any problem with it, its also simpler.  Will discuss with co-authors but I support the wording as proposed.

>I oppose this clarification. I believe that once triggered, even if the triggering application is invalid, AfriNIC should deterministically remain in the post-runout state.

This is tricky, and I understand your sentiments and went back and forth on this issue myself.  This clarification isn’t set in stone, and I think we will be guided by the will of the community on this as always.  It’s a fine balance between allowing a situation where a single applicant can force exhaustion, the potential implications of time delays based on FIFO principles and various other considerations.  This was a first attempt to balance all the potential issues with any run out, and I’ll openly say its not perfect and needs some debate before it hits the floor in Gaborone.  Any other inputs are welcome on this point.

>I would propose that the applicant be offered the largest remaining aggregate (up to the size requested) and that the same be done for each applicant in line behind them.

No in principle objections to this, and I think I actually prefer this approach as well.  Will wait for further comments and discuss with the co-authors.

All in all, I think the only really tricky part of the points you raise in the one clarification which needs a fair bit more debate



More information about the RPD mailing list