Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Policy Proposal - "Route aggregation policy (AFPUB-2017-V4-002-DRAFT-01)"
christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng
Tue Apr 25 13:39:48 UTC 2017
I am also finding it difficult reconciling the little amount of words
change in this proposal against the soft landing section of the CPM. One
may argue that this may not amount to a full policy. However, the PDP does
not actually give a clear cut indication of how much of "words" or "how
much of change" merits to be treated as a new policy.
There are currently two soft-landing related policies still under
discussion. I would suggest that the author of this policy join with any of
these policy authors under discussion and add these words somewhere as
update to their proposal.
The issue of whether "ipv4 aggregation" actually merits a proposal in order
to be executed, is another point raised. The major problem I have with this
is that we are in the last /8 allocation and just like Alain was trying to
ask, this would actually mean "reservation" in some way. To allow
allocations to be made only along certain boundaries, just so the
requesting LIR can easily aggregate several allocations may actually mean
reservation, which may not play out well with the rest of the proposals and
documentation towards soft landing.
I would therefore prefer we let go of this.
*Network Infrastructure UnitInformation And Communication Technology
*University of PortHarcourt,Mobile: +2348068610889*
*email: christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>*
* christian.ahiauzu at gmail.com <christian.ahiauzu at gmail.com>*
* christianahiauzu at yahoo.com
<christianahiauzu at yahoo.com> (Personal matters only)*
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
> > Looking at the re-wording suggested by the Policy - I seem to remember
> > that AFRINIC staff try their best to do this type of thing
> > automatically. It may not be necessary to state.
> Yes, no need.
> Aggregation is one the Goals of the Internet Registry system and they
> always do their best towards that it during the distribution.
> > It is however, a good thing to say (try and allocate consecutive
> > allocations to LIRs) to attempt to reduce the number of entries in the
> > routing table.
> I can live with this even though is redundant.
> But the text and the title of the policy seem to indicate something more
> New text:
> 5.4.4 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 during the
> Exhaustion Period. For the sake of routing table conservation, prefixes
> will be issued as aggregates when an LIR requests multiple additional
> Is the author implying:
> 1) apply reservation ?
> 2) force LIRs to renumber ?
> And if yes, how to apply to the last /8 as we are no longer in the normal
> On the general, do we need a “Route Aggregation“ policy for this ? Can’t
> this just be an update to the Softlanding policy ?
> Hope this helps
> > On 24/04/2017 11:52, SamiSalih wrote:
> >> Dear AFRINIC PDWG Members,
> >> Greetings,
> >> We have received a new policy Proposal - "Route aggregation policy
> >> From David Hilario (d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net)
> > --
> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD