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

[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

David Hilario d.hilario at
Wed Jul 12 08:02:09 UTC 2017

Hi Simon,

Let's say Seacom gets audited.

Your company like any other organisation have customers coming and
going and IP space utilisation can sometime drop, but especially
create holes in your allocation.

So out of your allocations, what would happen if tomorrow, you get
audited by AFRINIC and AFRINIC decides it could be put to "better use"
due to X% percentage being unused currently since the allocation was
issued X years ago, by policy that space should be fully in use by
now, even if they would do a partial reclaim of scattered /18s, /16s
but maybe even smaller things like /22s across your whole range, would
that be acceptable as an Audit result to your organisation, you would
honestly accept to deaggregate and return space that could be put to
use on your network in the coming years?

Space that AFRINIC will never be able to re-issue to your organisation
once depletion is completed?

We heard the comment that you get 3 months to solve any issues.
How would you solve the unused space dilemma within 3 months?

Because this is what we are being confronted with right now, the
re-evaluation of already issued resources, with de-registration as a
goal on very subjective terms left to the "staff discretion".

David Hilario

IP Manager

Larus Cloud Service Limited

p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
e: d.hilario at

On 12 July 2017 at 09:34, Simon mayoye <mayoye at> wrote:
> +1 Bill on this.
> Well if issued resources by a registry, then resource review on a member is
> essential. Anything else sounds fishy.
> Regards,
> Simon
> On 7/12/17 9:12 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> While I am not going to opine on the merits of the policy under discussion,
> I’d like to draw attention to one of the assertions made in the discussion:
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Lu Heng < at> wrote:
> This policy is in direct conflict with transfer policy, if someone wants to
> sell their address space, they surely not commit to use it with the original
> purpose, should AFRINIC instead of allowing them to transfer the space, but
> reclaim them and redistribute them for "better use"? If that is the case,
> the transfer policy will have no use because of that.
> I would just like to point out that the AfriNIC community does not exist to
> serve the financial interests of those who wish to sell addresses, rather
> than use them.
> The AfriNIC community is the community of people who need IP addresses, in
> order to route them and give people access to the Internet.  The AfriNIC
> policy process exists to serve those who wish to _use_ IP addresses, not
> those who wish to profit from them at the expense of the community.
> So, whatever your thoughts on the merits of this proposal, the fact that it
> fails to serve the interests of speculators is not an argument against it.
>                                 -Bill
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list