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

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Douglas,




>This statement is inaccurate and should be revised. IPv4 depletion
>statistics/estimates existed in 2011. Go to potaroo.net, and you will
>find stats/presentations of AFRINIC's exhaustion ETA, together with
>that of other regions.

The allocation rates in 2011 were *FAR* from what they are today, and no graph or statistical projection indicated the acceleration we have seen over the last few months.  So, while we can wordsmith it, I think we stand by the sentiments of the paragraph.

>This is also inaccurate. While the old proposal had a reserve pool, it
>was for unforseen circumstance. New entrants were a known at the time,
>so we can't bundle new entrants in there.

I understand the sentiment and I think this is just wording.  The meaning was, the policy has a reserved block for new entrants, and doesn’t simply lock them out.  We can wordsmith on this a bit.

>
>Meanwhile, I recall the number of times a company can get additional
>allocations/assignments being a major bone of contention/loophole. I
>don' seem to see how this policy addresses that. Or did I miss
>something.


On this, its very simple, under this policy, a new entrant can get *ONE* allocation, the initial /22, and that’s it.  Until such time as we hit the last /13 though, there are no limits, its status-quo allocations as they are today.

Thanks

Andrew