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

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

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Thu Jun 29 12:11:00 UTC 2017

I happen to agree with Owen here – and besides which – if overwhelming support in the room was enough to pass a policy irrespective of last call – under those rules – should I bring back the academic policy from Zambia?  There are video archives of that policy proposal and the support in the room as well – and we all know how that ended up in last call…..


From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at]
Sent: 29 June 2017 14:56
To: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at>
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing-bis Statement Post AFRINIC-26


I was in the room. There was NOT overwhelming support and significant opposition to SL-BIS and claiming otherwise utterly denies the facts of the situation.

Wishing does not make it so and personally attacking the PDWG co-chairs for doing their job is not appropriate.


On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at<mailto: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<>

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<>

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<>

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<>

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<mailto:RPD at><>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list