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

[rpd] Fwd: new policy proposal "Soft Landing - SD"

McTim dogwallah at
Sun Apr 2 15:21:25 UTC 2017

I can support this, I might tweak it a bit, see below:

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ernest <ernest at> wrote:
> A new policy proposal updating 5.4 of the Consolidated Policy Manual (CPM)
> has been received as follows, and is now open for discussions:
> Policy Proposal: Soft Landing SD
> ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> ID: AFPUB2017V4001DRAFT01
> Submission Date: 30 March 2017
> Version: 1
> Author(s:
> Douglas Onyango (ondouglas at
> Seun Ojedeji (seun.ojedeji at
> Amends : Soft Landing Policy CPM 5.4
> ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
> The current SoftLanding Policy describes how AFRINIC should manage
> allocations/assignments from the last /8.
> While the stated policy objective is to ensure that allocations/assignments
> are managed in a manner that is acceptable to the AFRINIC community, there
> is a general feeling from the AFRINIC community that certain provisions in
> the policy are not consistent with this objective. Specifically, the current
> Softlanding Policy:
> a. Allows a maximum allocation size of a /13 in Phase 1. The authors feel
> this is too large based on average allocation size, and can be abused.
> b. Allows organizations to request allocations/assignments without limiting
> the number of times or maximum size that can be requested. The authors of
> this policy feel this can advantage a few, mostly large organizations, at
> the expense of the general community, and can also be abused.
> c. Does not make any specific provisions for new entrants. The authors feel
> that this might advantage existing organizations at the expense of new
> entrants.
> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
> This proposals tries to address these problems by:
> * Reducing the maximum prefix in phase 1. We arrived at this figure by
> looking at the average allocation prefix which is between /19 and /18 and
> then doubling that average allocation.
> * Disallowing allocation to organisations who have been allocated up to the
> maximum prefixes during each phase.
> * Adjusted the maximum prefix for phase 2, to bring it closer to average
> allocation size
> 3. Proposal
> Modify Section of the CPM to the following:
> Exhaustion Phase 1:
> During this phase, allocation/assignment of address space will continue as
> in the Current phase (/24 for a EU and /22 for a LIR) but the maximum will
> change from /10 to /17.
> Modify Section of the CPM to the following :
> Exhaustion Phase 2
> During this phase a minimum allocation/assignment size will be /24, and the
> maximum will be /20 per allocation/assignment.
> Modify section 5.4.4 of the CPM to the following:
> For any LIR or End User requesting IPv4 address space during the Exhaustion
> There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organization may
> request additional IPv4 address space, so long as such organisation has not
> received allocations/assignments equivalent to the maximum prefix during
> each phase.

This is quite verbose and says the opposite of what it means.

To me it means: "There is an explicit limit of up to one /20
allocation per LIR or End User during Phase 2".

Have I got the intent right?



> 4. Revision History
> N/A
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the RPD mailing list