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

[rpd] Version: 5.0 "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC"

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at
Thu Nov 30 08:54:13 UTC 2017

Hi Nishal

By limited resources we mean human, material and financial resources.
Section 13.2  says : The reviews cover all allocated/Assigned resources,
but priority goes to IPv4 and ASN mappable to two-octet ASNs".
Further proof is the of IPv6-only  member category in the random class.
(IPv6 is far from being a limited resource).

 But it does not really matter as long as we all agree on the new text
which take all members in the random class



2017-11-27 9:10 GMT+00:00 Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at>:

> On 23 Nov 2017, at 20:17, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
> Hi Nishal,
> hi,
> We acknowledged that this has been raised and discussed. Main concerns
>> being addressed were issues of limited resources.
> ok.  i can see how your intent would have not been immediately obvious,
> since you seem to have initially listed as discrete categories “EU-ASN”,
> and, well, there isn’t a shortage of ASNs for general use.  or, “IPv6 Large
> users” because, again, there isn’t really an ipv6 shortage.  well, not
> until the Borg invade, anyway [1].  so “limited resources” were certainly
> not the first words in my mind.
> either way, i am happy you’ve moved past that.  i am sure others are too.
> The authors have no issue
>> with turning the  13.3.1 to the text below:
>> {
>>  13.3.1 Random
>> The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership.
>> }
> minor nit:  s/between/from
> and, thanks!  treating everyone equally feels less like a witch-hunt, eh?
> :-)
> We have noted your support to a v6.0 with the new 13.3.1 .
> i support the changed text;  but it is premature to say that this is
> support for a v6, since a v6 might include other changes that i might not
> support.  sorry to split hairs, but let’s see the text for complete v6
> first, ok?
> Same for the two
>> others who also opposed v5.0 for the same reason.
> i don’t think that either you or i, can do that.  i would _assume_ that
> they support the changed text, as i do.  but, it’s presumptive to call
> support for an as-yet unpublished document.
> again, thanks for the edit.
> i have a one more question:
> 13.2 reads:  “ and ASN mappable to two-octet ASNs.”.
> with the exception of IXP route-servers, afrinic no longer makes a
> distinction between these, and 32bit ASNs.  this was a point that seemed to
> cause a lot of angst a the mic, in the discussion of the IXP resource
> reservation policies.  given that:
> * operators don’t - or more correctly, can’t - care about the ASN that
> they’re allocated
> * bgp community support has been extended (and is only just waiting
> implementation), which means that part of the IXP reservation policy might
> not be needed in the future
> ..why do you want to audit the two ASN types separately?    surely, it’s
> not necessary to add:  “and ASN mappable to two-octet ASNs” ?
> other than that, this reads ok to me.  good luck.   :-)
> —n.
> [1]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list