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

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

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Sun Apr 2 17:32:51 UTC 2017

I objections to this remain exactly as stated to the previous softlanding-bis proposal that I posted a while back.

The ONLY way that I can support tightening on restrictions in soft landing is when this community allows for an alternative mechanism to get space for those who need it - effectively - pass a transfer policy that lets us transfer space (at the very least inbound), and then a further tightening of restrictions can be entertained - because that way people who do want more space than AfriNIC can provide, can still get it on the secondary market.

Until then - my opposition and the opposition of those I represent remains - you cannot disadvantage those who have needs today on the hypothetical of those who MAY have needs tomorrow 


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at] 
Sent: 02 April 2017 18:21
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Fwd: new policy proposal "Soft Landing - SD"

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

RPD mailing list
RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list