Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
fabrig10 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 21:38:47 UTC 2016
The proposal of M. Aina has my consent too
Le 23/02/2016 20:47, Emmanuel Togo a écrit :
> Hi All
> I support this proposal.
> I like the idea of reserving some block for critical infrastructure
> and late comers.
> Sent from my Samsung device
> -------- Original message --------
> From: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>
> Date: 23/02/2016 13:16 (GMT+00:00)
> To: AfriNIC List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft
> Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
> Hello All,
> Thank you all for your interest in our policy proposal. Some of the
> impressions being created about what it sets out to achieve are incorrect.
> The IPv4 softlanding-bis policy proposal does not intend to extend
> IPv4 lifetime at AFRINIC.
> The policy proposal stays in the spirit of the global Global Policy
> for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 address pool:
> (section 2 and 3) and the current IPv4 soft landing policy
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy (section
> The proposal makes sure the distribution of the final /8 [102/8] is
> fair enough based on the current consumption rate, assures
> availability of IPv4 to new comers, to Critical Internet
> Infrastructure as well as to the current players as we go through the
> transition to IPv6.
> To achieve this, it says :
> - during phase 1, move the maximum from /10 to /15.
> http://afrinic.net/en/services/rs/membership-fees shows the member
> categories and /15 is the median which covers majority of AFRINIC
> membership as shown at
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/membership [members by
> - during phase 2, reserve a block for new comers and for Critical
> Internet Infrastructures(new and current). Make sure CIRs get IPv4
> they need for their operations during the exhaustion and the transition.
> CIRs have been expanded to include TLDs during exhaustion phase 2.
> gTLDs are coming and ccTLDs being developed..
> Definition of CIR in other regions is available at
> Our initial thinking was that IXPs may benefit from the CIRs block
> during the phase 2 as the current reserve may not last and cover their
> needs at that time. We have no objection about removing IXPs from CIRs.
> IPv6 deployment is slow. AFRNIC has the lowest rate of members with
> v4/v6. During exhaustion, one must have IPv6 (from AFRINIC or
> upstreams ) when requesting IPv4. Deployment may not be enforceable
> but it puts IPv6 transition forward as the clear agenda at this time.
> Interested parties can view RIRs comparative “use of the final
> unallocated IPv4 address Space” can be seen at
> The FAQ linked to the policy is at
>  https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO_Q4_2015.pdf
> <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO_Q4_2015.pdf> slide 16
> Hope this helps
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Dear members,
>> This is to inform that an update has been published for this proposal.
>> Details can be found at the following URL:
>> ID: AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02
>> On 9 Feb 2016 2:46 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Members,
>> We have received a new policy Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS
>> Draft Policy name: Soft Landing - BIS
>> Unique identifier: AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-01
>> Status: Under Discussion
>> Submission Date 06 February 2016
>> AFPUB-2010-v4-005 (IPv4 soft landing policy)
>> a. Omo Oaiya, omo at wacren.net <mailto:omo at wacren.net>, WACREN
>> b. Joe Kimaili, jkimaili at ubuntunet.net
>> <mailto:jkimaili at ubuntunet.net>, Ubuntunet Alliance
>> c. Alain P. AINA, aalain at trstech.net <mailto:aalain at trstech.net>,
>> Text Below:
>> *1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>> The soft landing policy ratified by the board on 11/11/2011
>> describes how AFRINIC should manage allocations/assignments from
>> the last /8. It defines 2 phases for IPv4 exhaustion. During
>> phase 1, it sets the maximum allocation/assignment to be /13
>> instead of /10 and in phase 2, the maximum to /22 and the minimum
>> to /24. It makes no difference between existing LIRs or End-Users
>> and new ones. The policy also does not impose IPv6 deployment.
>> IPv4 exhaustion in other regions combined with other factors has
>> imposed huge pressure on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool with requests for
>> large IPv4 blocks, with very little IPv6 deployment. The pressure
>> on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool has led to some policy proposals to
>> reserve some blocks for certain sub-communities.
>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem*
>> This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:
>> Changing the value of the maximum allocation/assignment size
>> during the exhaustion phase 1.
>> Imposing IPv6 resources as a pre-condition to IPv4 resource
>> requests during the exhaustion.
>> Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure
>> and new LIRs or End-Users.
>> Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over
>> time during the exhaustion period.
>> *3) Proposal
>> 3.1 The policy proposal changes clause/article 3.5.1 of the
>> current IPv4 Soft Landing Policy to:
>> 3.5.1 EXHAUSTION PHASE 1During this phase,allocation/assignment
>> of address space will continue as in the Current phase with no
>> explicit minimum but the maximum will change from /10 to /15.
>> Allocations and assignments will be made from the Final /8 or
>> from any other IPv4 address space available to AFRINIC, until no
>> more than a /11 of non-reserved space is available in the Final
>> /8.At this point, exhaustion phase 2 will begin.
>> For the avoidance of doubt all applications that will be in
>> process at this point will be evaluated as per the new policy.
>> 3.2 This policy proposal changes Clauses/Articles 3.6, 3.8 and
>> 3.9 of the current IPv4 Soft Landing Policy to:
>> 3.6 If any LIR or End User requests IPv4 address space during
>> Exhaustion: There is no explicit limit on the number of times an
>> organization may request additional IPv4 address space during
>> Exhaustion Phase 1. During exhaustion Phase 2, new LIRs or
>> End-Users can receive only one allocation/assignment from the new
>> LIRs or End-Users reserved pool.
>> 3.8 Allocation CriteriaIn order to receive IPv4 allocations or
>> assignments during the Exhaustion Phase, the LIR or
>> End User must meet IPv4 allocation or assignment policy
>> requirements and must have used at
>> least 90% of all previous allocations or assignments (including
>> those made during both the Current Phase and the Exhaustion Phase).
>> In the case of new LIRs or End Users with no previous allocations
>> or assignments, this
>> requirement does not apply to their first allocation or
>> assignment request.
>> LIRs and End users requesting IPv4 space must have IPv6 resources
>> from AFRINIC (or request IPv6 concurrently with their IPv4
>> request), or from their upstream providers.
>> AFRINIC resources are for the AFRINIC service region and any use
>> outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity
>> back to the AFRINIC region
>> 3.9 IPv4 Address Space for [Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)],
>> critical Internet infrastructure, new LIRs or End-Users and
>> unforeseen circumstances
>> During exhaustion phase 2, allocations/assignments to IXPs,
>> Critical Internet infrastructure and new LIRs and End-Users will
>> be as follows:
>> 3.9.1 Assignments to critical infrastructure
>> A /16 from the final /11 will be held in reserve for exclusive
>> use by critical Internet infrastructure. On application for IPv4
>> resources, a critical Internet Infrastructure operator may
>> receive one number resource (maximum /22).
>> Critical infrastructure are ICANN-sanctioned DNS root server
>> operators, IXPs, TLD (Top Level Domain) operators, IANA and RIRs.
>> On application for IPv4 resources, an Internet Exchange Point
>> (IXP) will receive one number resource (maximum /23) according to
>> the following:
>> This space will be used to run an Internet Exchange Point
>> peering LAN; other uses are forbidden.
>> New Internet Exchange points will be assigned a maximum of
>> /24. Internet exchange points may return this assignment (or
>> existing PI used as in the IXP peering LAN) should they run out
>> of space and receive a larger (a maximum of /23 if utilization
>> requires) assignment.
>> IP space returned by Internet Exchange Points will be added
>> to the reserved pool maintained for use by Internet Exchange Points.
>> 3.9.2 Allocations/Assignments to new LIRs or End-Users
>> A /14 from the final /11 will be held in reserve for exclusive
>> use by new LIRs or End-Users with no prior IPv4 address space
>> from AFRINIC. On application for IPv4 resources, a new LIR or
>> End-User may receive one number resource (maximum /22).
>> 3.9.3 Reserve for unforeseen situations
>> A /13 IPv4 address block will be in reserved out of the Final /8.
>> This /13 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for
>> some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative
>> and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen.
>> Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in
>> case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses.
>> When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address
>> space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address
>> space), AFRINIC in consultation with the community via the Policy
>> Discussion Mailing list and considering the demand and other
>> factors at the time will replenish the exhaustion pool with
>> whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to
>> AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interests of
>> the community.
>> 4.0) Revision History
>> 4th February 2016 AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT01 (Version 1.0) Posted
>> to the rpd mailing list
>> 5.0) References*
>> Global Policy for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 address
>> 6.0) Frequently Asked Questions
>> Please click here
>> to read through some important frequently asked questions behind
>> understanding the content in this proposal.
>> Best Regards
>> Relevant Url:
>> 1. Policy Development process:
>> Sami Salih & Seun Ojedeji
>> PDWG Co-Chairs
>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about
>> your action!
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> DISCLAIMER ------------------ NOTE: This e-mail message is subject to
> the University of Ghana email disclaimer see
> http://www.ug.edu.gh/ugemaildisclaimer for disclaimer.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD