[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing-bis policy proposal discussions and consensus

[ALAIN AINA]

Hello RPD,

Once again, the authors would like to thank the RPD list and the community for the discussions and suggestions we had  so far about the soft landing-bis policy proposal.

We discussed:

- The Maximum of allocation/assignment  size in exhaustion phase 1

- The IPv6 clause linked to allocation  during the exhaustion.
   LIR and End users requesting IPv4 must have IPv6 resources from AFRINIC (or request concomitantly with the IPv4) or from their upstreams.

- Reserves for new comers and Critical Internet Infrastructures during phase 2

- Limitation on number of allocations/assignment during the exhaustion 


Most of the contributions showed support  to the IPv6 clause and to the reserves for "new comers" and  "Critical Internet Infrastructures". Authors consider that we have reached a fair consensus on these points. 

Many contributions on the list suggested  that the maximum of allocation/assignment size be set to lower than /15. Many others were however of the opinion of the authors. Therefore, we believe that /15 is a good compromise which serves  the best, the interest of the community at large.  

So  we call for consensus on the /15.

We received many comments and queries on-list and off-list about limiting  the number of additional requests from a member during phase 1. Phase 2 having provisions for new comers and critical Internet Infrastructures.

Concerns were that considering the current rate of allocation, Phase 1 may not last as expected.

in 2014,AFRINIC issued  46,603 /24 IPv4 (11,930,368 IPs), 0.711105347 /8
In 2015, AFRINIC issued 65,959 /24 IPv4 (16,885,504 IPs),1.006454468 /8
in 2016 (30 March 2016), AFRINIC issued 18,820 /24 IPv4 (4,817,920 IPs), 0.28717041 /8

As said before, this policy proposal tries to stay in the spirit of "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy” which did not set limit of number of  additional allocations/assignments  to a member during the exhaustion as our region is emerging and AFRINIC is the RIR which distributed  the least  of IPV4. It just reduced the allocation/assignment period of 12 months to 8 months to only satisfy short and mid-term needs. 

To accommodate this request, we suggest the following change to the phase1 allocation criteria:

Phase 1

- Maximum allocation/assignment size is /15
- There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organisation may request additional IPv4 address space,
"but the total of allocation/assignment to a member shall not exceed /15”

Phase 2

No change

We would like to hear the community views on this.


Thanks

—Alain(on behalf of the Authors)