[rpd] Update of ipv4-soft-landing-bis Proposal (+Staff Assessment Report)

[ALAIN AINA]

Hi,



> On 19 May 2017, at 06:52, Ernest <ernest at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> A staff assessment of your proposal was concluded and areport has
> been published alongside your proposal at:
> 
> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis <https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis>



Below our answers……


1.0 Staff Understanding of the Proposal

 Complete replacement for the current IPv4 Soft Landing policy (replaces entire CPM 5.4)
=========================================================================================

Yes

Policy makes resource provisions for new LIRs and End-Users, something lacking in current CPM 5.4.
=================================================================================================


No. The last version, no longer has this provision. New LIRs/End-users are now covered by the “IPv6 deployment reserve”

Creates a reserved & dedicated (IPv4 /12) block for companies needing IPv4 space to support IPv6 deployment.
============================================================================================================

Yes.

 Introduces new values for the maximum allocations/assignment sizes:Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.
        Phase 1: Maximum /18, no minimum (implies minimum /32)
        Phase 2: Maximum /22, no minimum (implies minimum /32)
Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.

===================================================================

Yes, but we intended to empower staff to determine the minimum for allocation size as we go through the exhaustion  phases of the IPv4.

 

2.0 Staff Comments
	
=============
Our Responses

- The missing paragraphs in introduction to 5.4 will be restored

- Definition of New End-users, New LIRs can be removed as no longer needed

- The rest the comments are related to texts which  were imported from the existing policy already implemented and we  did not intent to fix or improve them.

- This proposal cancels the Reserve for “some future uses, as yet unforeseen”

- We can split 5.4.6 as requested

- We can set the minimum allocation/assignment to /24 as requested by Staff, even though we expect this to be  within staff’s power to determine based of the evolution. The today /24 may not be the case in the future.  

- The "There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organisation may request additional IPv4 address space during the Exhaustion Period" applies to the whole exhaustion phase (phase 1 and Phase2)
The positioning of this text in 5.4.3.2 was introduced with the CPM-Style format.

- Workload caused by this proposal is the same as the current policy. So no reasons to be concerned.


Thanks

—Alain

> 
> (It's at the bottom of the proposal text)
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ernest.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170528/56b9d5e4/attachment-0001.html>