[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Andrew Alston]

Noah,

In Answer to your question, I would challenge *ANYONE* proposing policy that was on the face of it in violation of current policy.

Andrew


From: Noah [mailto:noah at neo.co.tz]
Sent: 08 November 2016 22:18
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>; Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
Subject: RE: [rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management


On 8 Nov 2016 21:53, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> Noah,
>
>
> The AfriNIC policies at current are very clear – on application for space you have to show that you can use 50% of it within 6 months and all of it within 12 months.  Unless WACREN has a very strange use case for globally unique space that is not announced that don’t know about – they are in clear violation of the CURRENT policies, while trying to implement new ones that will restrict others who are 100% in compliance who may need more space.
>

What would have been the argument suppose the authors were not individuals from Wacren but from some other member who has both v4 nd v6 announced?.

>
>  Of course as I have said, there are plenty of cases for globally unique non announced space – and this MAY be the case in which case they have done nothing wrong – but then I’m sure many of us would like to know what that case is.
>

I will leave that to Wacren as its their network and am sure they have there own reason. They could as well announce all their aggregates like most folk out there are doing.

But i still dont see how relevant that is vs the policy the folk are proposing.

>
> Andrew
>

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161108/6ad17d5d/attachment-0001.html>