[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:23 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 Jul 2017 9:17 p.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 24, 2017, at 03:37 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com <mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Ish Sookun <ish at lsl.digital> wrote:
> >> Hi Omo, Joe and Alain,
> >>
> >> Section 5.4.3.1.1 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? From whom? What, exactly, does “fast track”
> it through the PDP mean?
> 
> Owen
> 
> Are you kidding!!! 

I am not kidding.

> 
> Were you not in Nairobi??????

I was in Nairobi.

> 
> Are you not aware that there is only one soflanding policy still standing because of the support it has.

I am aware that there is only one soft landing policy still standing because despite agreement to do so, the authors reneged on their agreement to withdraw it when the authors of the other policy withdrew theirs in good faith according to that same agreement.

For the record, I will again state that I oppose this proposal, but, even if the proposal is acceptable, it is not an emergent situation worthy of section 3.6 of the CPM.

> 
> 
> 
> >        Dear Co Chairs, what is the status of fast tracking this
> > proposal? Can you give the community a roadmap?
> 
> This should, indeed, be an interesting response.
> 
> 
> Please let the co-chairs play their part Owen.

In what way have I interfered with the co-chairs here?

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170725/915f7e0e/attachment.html>