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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jul 25 20:42:09 UTC 2017

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:33 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 2017, at 03:37 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Ish Sookun <ish at> wrote:
>>>> Hi Omo, Joe and Alain,
>>>> Section of the IPv4 Soft Landing BIS [1] states the following:
>>>>   "During this phase, allocation/assignment of IPv4 address space will
>>>>    continue as in Pre-Exhaustion with the minimum set at /24, but the
>>>>    maximum will change from /10 to /18, subject to the provisions in
>>>>    5.4.6.
>>>> The policy proposal was submitted on 29 June 2017. However, on 3 April
>>>> 2017 AFRINIC announced [2] entering IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 1. Shouldn't
>>>> the proposal state "Exhaustion Phase 1" as the "Current Phase" and
>>>> therefore propose the maximum allocation change from /13 to /18?
>>>       This Soft Landing revision version 5 received support to fast
>>> track it through the PDP.
>> Um… WHere is this support recorded?
> rpd archive

I see a request for constructive discussion. I don’t see support for “fast tracking” or even necessarily support for the proposal in this particular message.


This is a single message from you advocating a particular change to the policy and a personal opinion that the policy is needed urgently.

>> From whom?
> community members

You have failed to make this case. You have, instead, referenced only your own support for the policy and a general call for discussion after an update.

>> What, exactly, does “fast track”
>> it through the PDP mean?
> the CPM 3.6 article - Varying The Process

According to 3.6:

3.6 Varying the Process

The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required. The decision to vary the process is taken by the Working Group Chair. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

This provides for a reduction of the process to some extent at the discretion of the PDWG chair(s) in the case of an emergency. I argue that no such emergency exists here and your own statement and your reference to it as “support from community members” (emphasis on your use of the plural here) doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny as the only “community members” you were able to show were your own prior post.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list