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

[rpd] AFRINIC Board ratifies Policy Proposal AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03: IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jul 21 18:58:12 UTC 2017

As a point of information, other regions by and large have a maximum prefix length of /24 specified for transfers. This is the maximum practical length in most cases due to routing issues anyway, so in practice absent a maximum prefix length, I think it would be unlikely to result in longer than /24s being transferred in any meaningful or useful way.

My personal opinion as regards the transfer policy is that it is illogical to require entire blocks, but that a requirement to transfer in bit-aligned prefix block(s) is reasonable.


> On Jul 21, 2017, at 05:48 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at> wrote:
> On 21/Jul/17 14:21, Ernest wrote:
>> All,
>> As we implement the "IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC
>> Region" policy - a quick clarification is sought from authors (and
>> community) on whether a transfer can be partial - or must be the
>> entire block as allocated/assigned.
>> For example, if a LIR is allocated a /17, can the LIR opt to
>> transfer a /22 out of the /17?
>> This is not clearly indicated in the proposal:
>> <>
> While a bit of diligence will be required to properly keep records of IRR data, I think it would be okay to allow LIR's to make partial transfers. Not doing this makes it an all-or-nothing scenario, which sort of challenges the need for the policy itself.
> I'm not sure whether we want to include any language that determines the maximum length that can be transferred, as part of this policy, in order to maintain some level of control on routing table pollution.
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list