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

[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016

Nishal Goburdhan nishal at
Tue Aug 30 12:06:47 UTC 2016

On 29 Aug 2016, at 18:32, sm+afrinic at wrote:

> The article does not discuss about why the network was down for two 
> days as that happened afterwards.  I would not describe an IX handling 
> the level of traffic of one FTTH user as functional.

i would describe the IX with at least three peers, that’s happily 
passing the frames of willing participants as functional.
if you don’t like your ISPs policies, vote with your wallet..

> I would also not say that for an IX which is not keeping local traffic 
> local as I do not wish to be the one explaining about that if there is 
> an inquiry about the funds which were spent on the IX.

to be clear, you do realise that it takes *ISPs* that are willing to 
peer, to “keep traffic local”.  if a particular ISP, does not want 
to peer, the IXP isn’t going to magically fix your packet’s 

i’m happy to argue the specifics of how peering works on a more 
appropriate list.

> Should a /22 (IPv4) be reserved for a white elephant? :-) tells me that there’s network prefixes being 
announced at the IXP.
statistics from tell me that there’s 
live traffic going across the IXP.
the members list at shows me what looks 
like likely real peers.

your complaint seems to be about one ISP’s peering policy.  it’s 
probably best to take that up with the ISPs directly.  i don’t think 
RPD can assist you, though.

i wasn’t aware that the MIXP had a /22 reserved.
i wouldn’t call the MIXP a white elephant.


More information about the RPD mailing list