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

[rpd] [Spam]Re: IPv4 Soft Landing-bis Statement Post AFRINIC-26

Saul Stein saul at
Mon Jun 19 07:00:34 UTC 2017


While I agree that we should all be going the v6 route, it isn’t always 
possible. If you have a legitimate need for the space then you should be 
able to get it while it is there. 2 years is a long time in the future - 
double AFRICNIC’s current planning phase and a single FTTx project could 
take a /18. One project and you can't get address space.

You’d also need to state that excludes applications before the policy was 
passed as organisations that have already received allocations would now 
have to wait 2 years….

What are we stockpiling v4 space for?


-----Original Message-----
From: Sami [mailto:s.aitalioulahcen at]
Sent: 16 June 2017 11:43 AM
To: rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Spam]Re: IPv4 Soft Landing-bis Statement Post AFRINIC-26


On 16/06/2017 06:11, Jackson Muthili wrote:
> The proposal IPv4 Soft Landing BIS only needs one more input to make it 
> perfect.
> That input should come from the just withdrawn Soft Landing SD as follows:
> ====|
> an organization that has received the maximum allowable prefix in each
> phase may request for another round of allocation/assignment in the
> same phase after a 24 calendar months waiting period.
> |=====
> With this addition it has my full support (also add the /24 minimum back).
> Due to urgency of need of this proposal to cap abusers with negative
> interests of our region depleting our pool and hence negating fair and
> equitable distribution of this last block I request that co-chairs
> immediately vary the process for quick approval of this proposal
> (BIS-SD or whatever both parties will call it)
> J
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at> wrote:
>> Dear Community,
>> On 9 February 2016, we initiated a policy proposal to update the IPv4
>> Soft Landing policy (SL) adopted in 2011 and which followed the
>> Global IPv4 soft landing policy that granted the 102/8 to AFRINIC in
>> February 2011
>> The existing Soft landing policy defines how to fairly distribute the
>> 102/8 and other remaining v4 space to support a smooth transition to
>> IPv6.  It defines 2 phases (phase 1 and Phase 2) and keep a reserve
>> of /12 for unforeseen future. More detail at
>> icy-manual#SoftLanding
>> The IPv4 Softlanding-Bis (SL-Bis) proposal aimed to make the
>> distribution more equitable based on AFRINIC IPv4
>> allocation/assignment statistics. It stayed in the spirit of the Soft
>> Landing policy (Need based allocations, fair distribution, no limit
>> on request from members) with the following
>> changes:
>> - reduce the max allocation/assignment in phase 1 from /13 to  /18
>> ([latest version]
>> - change nothing in Phase 2
>> - remove the minimum allocation of /24 and empower staff to determine
>> the minimum as we go through the exhaustion and the transition to
>> IPv6
>> - cancel the unforeseen future reserve(to be used at BoD discretion)
>> and create a dedicated reserve  for IPv6 deployment[ latest version] :
>> - allocation/assignment to root ops and  African ccTLDs operating in
>> the region for dual stack  DNS servers
>> - v4 space for new comers with IPv6 network for 464XLAT/ transition
>> mechanisms
>> More information on the SL-Bis proposal at
>> als/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis
>> On 12 February 2016,  a policy proposal named “Soft Landing
>> Overhaul”(SL-overhaul) was submitted. Section 2.0 of the proposal
>> reads
>> ======
>> 2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
>> This proposal still maintains a block of space reserved for new
>> entrants, but beyond that, it allows for the natural depletion of
>> IPv4 through standard demand, and hence encourages the uptake of IPv6
>> in a more aggressive manner.
>> =====
>> More information on SL-overhaul at
>> ls/1623-soft-landing-overhaul
>> The two proposals were presented at AFRINIC24 held in Gaborone (June 
>> 2016).
>> Despite the fact that many participants supported SL-Bis proposal,
>> the chairs declared that none of the 2 proposals got consensus.
>> During AFRINIC-25 held in Mauritius (November 2016), to avoid the
>> Gaborone scenario, the authors of SL-Bis offered to work together
>> with the authors of SL-overhaul to find a common ground about how to
>> update the SL policy despite the differences in the problem statements of 
>> the two proposals.
>> SL-overhaul authors withdrew their proposal thereafter and the
>> consolidation attempts by the Co-chairs produced the following
>> document -
>> The Chairs called for volunteers to take on points from that document
>> and propose policy while SL-bis was still in the PDP track.  As a
>> consequence,
>> Soft Landing SD (SL-SD) was proposed on 30th March 2017. Section 2.0
>> of the proposal reads:
>>  =======
>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
>> This proposal 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. We found the average to
>> be between
>> /17 and /16.
>>   -  Disallowing allocation to organisations who have been allocated
>> up to the maximum prefixes during each phase for certain duration.
>>   - Adjusted the maximum prefix for phase 2, to bring it closer to
>> average allocation size.
>> =========
>> The proposal modifies section 5.4.4 of the CPM to the following:
>> ==============
>> For any LIR or End User requesting IPv4 address space during the
>> Exhaustion
>> phases:
>> An organization may request additional IPv4 address space in
>> both Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, such an organisation's total
>> allocations/assignments must not exceed the maximum allowable prefix
>> of /16 for Exhaustion Phase 1 and /20 for Exhaustion Phase 2.
>> Notwithstanding, an organisation that has received
>> the maximum allowable prefix in each phase may request for another
>> round of allocation/assignment in the same phase (as per,
>> after 24 calendar months waiting period.
>> =====================
>> More information about SL-SD at
>> ls/2089-soft-landing-sd
>> SL-BIS and SL-SD were presented at AFRINIC26 held in Nairobi (May
>> 2017). As in Gaborone, the chairs declared no consensus for the 2
>> proposals despite the overwhelming support for SL-BIS.  The SL-SD
>> team withdrew their proposal which only got support from author
>> present.. See withdrawal message at
>> Some discussions have occurred on the list after the AFRINIC26
>> meeting about consolidating Soft landing policy update around SL-bis,
>> etc…
>> In conclusion, if the chairs got the message from the community and
>> are ready to vary the PDP as per section 3.6 of the CPM, the authors
>> will happily work on submitting an update of SL-bis.  Otherwise, the
>> authors consider that based on the timing of the exhaustion phases
>> and current PDP process, we have reached a juncture at which a
>> further update has diminished value. As such, we would find it more
>> productive to work separately on aspects of the Soft landing that do
>> not have time constraints and can still go through the normal PDP.
>> The authors thank you all for your contribution and support all along
>> the SL-bis journey.
>> Joe Kimaili (Ubuntunet Alliance) Alain Aina, Omo Oaiya (WACREN)
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

GPG Key ID: 0x36d57440

RPD mailing list
RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list