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

[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 113, Issue 50

GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK gnonkoto.patrick at
Mon Feb 29 10:43:10 UTC 2016

Je soutiens cette proposition en ce qu'elle fait un clin d'œil sur les ccTLD. Moi en tant que responsable du ccTLD ivoirien, déclarer qu'un TLD soit une ressource critique me réjouit et dans le même temps je souhaite qu'une plage leur soit réservée à l'instar des IXP.
AFRINIC sait que je viens de faire une demande dans ce sens, je suis dans l'attente...
Et puis, cette proposition fait la part médiane et elle consolide nos acquis.


   Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP
   Direction des Systèmes d’information et des Transactions Electroniques
   Téléphone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960
   Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20
   Fax : +225 20 34 43 75
   Email : gnonkoto.patrick at 
              gnonkoto.patrick at       
              gnonkoto.patrick at 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : rpd-request at [mailto:rpd-request at] 
Envoyé : dimanche 28 février 2016 12:00
À : rpd at
Objet : RPD Digest, Vol 113, Issue 50

Send RPD mailing list submissions to
	rpd at

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	rpd-request at

You can reach the person managing the list at
	rpd-owner at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing -
      BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)" (Nishal Goburdhan)
   2. Re: Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing -
      BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)" (Nishal Goburdhan)


Message: 1
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:40:36 +0200
From: "Nishal Goburdhan" <nishal at>
To: "AfriNIC List" <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft
	Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
Message-ID: <9EF2B127-82CD-436A-A7CD-87F046B20C62 at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

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 
> y
> (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.
> shows the member 
> categories and /15 is the median which covers majority of AFRINIC 
> membership as shown at 
>  [members by 
> Category]

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 number (/10).

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 
> 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 
> :

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 
> CIRs.

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[1]. 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, 
*at all*.

so, i?d strongly suggest to the authors to decouple ?IPv4 management 
under soft landing? (which i think is important) from, ?enforced 
ipv6 allocations?



Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:45:07 +0200
From: "Nishal Goburdhan" <nishal at>
To: rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft
	Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
Message-ID: <80C892BB-DD96-4BC9-A424-EABC57A81155 at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 24 Feb 2016, at 19:16, Joshua Atah wrote:

> I strongly support this proposal. It is perhaps our only hope of 
> avoiding a
> crisis in a short while from now.

no it isn?t.  you can learn to use IPv6 and/or nat444 or SIIT, or ?

there are many good elements to the policy, and, perhaps, some bad ones.
it?s a lot more constructive to discuss the merits and shortcomings, 
than to attempt to inflict policy through fear-mongering?



Subject: Digest Footer

RPD mailing list
RPD at


End of RPD Digest, Vol 113, Issue 50

More information about the RPD mailing list