Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
nishal at controlfreak.co.za
Sun Feb 28 08:40:36 UTC 2016
On 23 Feb 2016, at 15:09, ALAIN AINA wrote:
> 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.
(and that’s not necessarily bad, btw!)
> 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
> (section 3).
> 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
there was a lot of discussion around this at the time of the original
policy. many large ISPs felt that a /15 would severely impact them, and
(please correct me douglas) that’s why during phase1, this was a large
a median is fine, but, it’s still a median. how do you propose
afrinic deal with a large LIR request (specifically during phase1)
> - 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
> 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
to be clear - because you did not state it - are you suggesting that we
accept this definition for _this_ region as well? and which definition?
it’s good to have reference, but, as has been pointed out before,
what works elsewhere is *NOT* the same as what should needlessly be done
here. i, for one, would not support .MYSEXYNEWTLD as a critical
resource, vs, say an african ccTLD. others might feel otherwise.
since there are unlikely to be more RIRs created, and we *should* be
able to assume that the IANA can take care of itself ;-) what amounts
to a CIR please?
> 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
you’re 100% correct in that the current reserve (when the hostmasters
get around to implementing it) might not last. we thumbsucked a number
that we thought that the community would be willing to support, which
worked to roughly 2x new IXPs per economy (well, less actually). more
space would be nice.
i don’t recall reading anyone asking for an exclusion; i asked
specifically how you saw the IXP’s *need* for non-network
announcement, and *want* for allocations from a contiguous block, to
easily identify accidental route leakage, to be addressed within this
policy. that remains unanswered.
> 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.
i am still opposed to this part. as it seems are others. i am happy
with the request-v4-once idea once you hit exhaustion phase X. but
i’m not happy about forcing an ipv6 allocation down someone’s
throat; that hardly sounds bottom-up to me…
> Deployment may not be enforceable but it puts IPv6 transition forward
> as the clear agenda at this time.
ok, so then to save time, why doesn’t afrinic simply allocate the
minimum the appropriate minimum IPv6 allocation to existing LIRs and EUs
*now*; ie. *every* resource member in good standing, that doesn’t
already have an IPv6 allocation, automatically gets the minimum
allocation per IPv6 allocation policy … think of how many more cute
infographics can be made showing IPv6 rollout^Wallocations^Wgrowth^W^W
in africa !!! :-)
incidentally, quoting from your earlier paragraph:
“The policy proposal stays in the spirit of … soft landing (section
and then reading those references:
“This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining
IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs”
697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy section 3:
“This policy (IPv4 Soft Landing), applies to the management of address
space that will be available to AfriNIC after the current IPv4 pool is
… in fact, the words IPv6 do not appear in soft landing, section 3,
so, i’d strongly suggest to the authors to decouple “IPv4 management
under soft landing” (which i think is important) from, “enforced
More information about the RPD