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

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

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Sun May 28 17:21:12 UTC 2017


> On 19 May 2017, at 06:52, Ernest <ernest at> wrote:
> Hi All,
> A staff assessment of your proposal was concluded and areport has
> been published alongside your proposal at:
> <>

Below our answers……

1.0 Staff Understanding of the Proposal

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


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.


 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 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.



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list