Search RPD Archives
[rpd] AFRINIC Board ratifies Policy Proposal AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03: IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region
owen at delong.com
Fri Jul 21 19:00:21 UTC 2017
> On Jul 21, 2017, at 05:58 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> On 21/Jul/17 14:52, Mike Burns wrote:
>> FYI, every other RIR allows partial block sales down to the minimum transfer size.
>> This might mean a negative impact due to route de-aggregation, but it has a positive impact on the supply of addresses for the market, as address-holders can sell small sections of their holdings that might be unused, without the need for emptying the entire block.
> I think some text to cap the minimum transfer size to a /24 is still reasonable from a router FIB resource management perspective. I know it's not the RIR's job to be "operational", but given that IPv4's last legs could easily cost Internet infrastructure dearly, I think it's prudent.
Do you honestly believe that if AfriNIC allows long transfers it will magically cause ISPs to start accepting long prefixes into the FIB?
I think it is prudent, but I think because those that might be gullible enough to buy a longer prefix are likely those who don’t really understand the ramifications resulting in some rather awkward subsequent arguments where AfriNIC is dragged in despite being only the recorder of the transfer and not party to the terms of the sale so to speak.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD