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

[rpd] SL-BIS (Was Re: Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1))

David Hilario d.hilario at
Fri Aug 18 03:45:38 UTC 2017


On 17 August 2017 at 19:35, ALAIN AINA <aalain at> wrote:

> The spirit of the current SL which SL-bis followed is to make fair
> distribution, give chance to many, at all stages, but avoid stocking unused
> space.
> Thus, the no limit on numbers of request from members in Phase 1 and Phase
> 2.

That part bugs me in the current version and I oppose any new version
of the policy keeping it in.
How do you see this being done in practice?

Either have a limit or not have one at at all.
If you have a need, the evaluation process from AFRINIC will result in
a number that you need for your network.

If they concluded you needed a /18, but can only issue a /22 per request.
A large LIR will still be above 90% utilisation even after receiving
their /22, there will literally be nothing to review by AFRINIC staff
in any subsequent requests that all can be sent at the same time

>From a logistic point of view it really doesn't make much sense to
keep these limits in there.

We can set a hard limit max X amount once per LIR.
Or once every X amount of months/years limit.
Or have no limits.

All of the three above have pros and cons, but at least they are clear.

But have max amount of IPs per request with no limits on amount of
request is just asking for AFRINIC to get flooded by requests, creates
confusion and ultimately large fragmentation at a rapid rate.

David Hilario

IP Manager

Larus Cloud Service Limited

p: +852 29888918  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
e: d.hilario at

More information about the RPD mailing list