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

Ismail Settenda ismail at
Sun Jul 23 03:52:33 UTC 2017

Hi all,

I also support partial transfers down to /24.

Best regards

Ismail Settenda

On Jul 23, 2017 12:20 AM, "Ben Maddison" <benm at> wrote:

Hi all,

I fully agree with the below points made already by Mark and Andrew, which
I needn't repeat.
In addition to the issues surrounding the routing of the transfered prefix,
it is also important to note that the below scenario would require
punching a /26 sized hole in an existing prefix, which would be similarly
I'd also point out that were the below hypothetical scenario to deteriorate
onto litigation, AFRINIC could conceivably be joined as an interested
party, thus wasting time and money on legal representation.
For all these reasons, I strongly support limiting transfers to a minimum
size of /24.



Sent from Hiri <>

On 2017-07-22 11:35:49+02:00 Andrew Alston wrote:

I think it goes beyond just pressure on the ISP to accept the /26 – it’s
trying to explain to the customer after the fact that despite you accepting
it and propagating it (hopefully in violation of your own policy), that
their reachability is extremely limited.

End of the day – the customers don’t care that **YOU** are accepting it and
that **YOU** are propagating it – what they care about is the fact that
THEY can’t get somewhere, and no matter how many times you explain the
situation – you can find customers that simply don’t want to hear and give
you tons of grief.

As a result – I would say – just to avoid headaches for the ISP’s –
language to limit this is pretty important


*From: *Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at>
*Date: *Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 17:22
*To: *Owen DeLong <owen at>
*Cc: *"rpd at" <rpd at>
*Subject: *Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board ratifies Policy Proposal
AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03: IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region

On 21/Jul/17 21:00, Owen DeLong wrote:

Do you honestly believe that if AfriNIC allows long transfers it will
magically cause ISPs to start accepting long prefixes into the FIB?

Not magically, but if an ISP obtains a /26 by way of transfer, they could
put their service provider under pressure to route it. Of course, that
exchange is outside of AFRINIC's scope, and I know any language to manage
that could be over-reaching, but I suppose what I'm trying to do is to
remove the opportunity to have the discussion in the first place.

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.

I have seen strange things in my day. This wouldn't surprise me in the

But in all fairness, I'm not that horny for such text to be in policy.
Something like this can easily self-correct if it did happen. But if the
text were there, I wouldn't mind either.


RPD mailing list
RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list