Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
kmw.elitcha at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 10:37:14 UTC 2018
Please, find few comments below.
2018-04-28 21:27 GMT+00:00 Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>:
> The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and
Intentionally? The question is worth asking?
> as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at very sharp and deep
> divides. The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not ready to
> shift grounds,
We've gone a long way through this policy.
> in this regard can we answer the following:
> 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy of
> this nature?
Considering that the said policy has reached "Last call". I'd answer yes.
> 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?
I find a clue for this here
> 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried and we
> make progress on more productive issues.
Archives should tell about the interest or lack of interest the community
on the SL-BIS
> However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we do a
> clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus,
Co-chairs have already declared "consensus". Does it make your suggestion
> any clause agreed upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious but
> that way, we can identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or discard it.
> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.
> It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast
> track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on
Assuming the problem statement, here is what 2.0 says.
This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:
Changing the value of the maximum allocations/assignment sizes during
exhaustion phases 1 and 2.
Reserving a dedicated block to facilitate IPv6 deployment.
So IPv6 deployment is covered.
Hoping this helps.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ALAIN AINA" <aalain at trstech.net>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 12:55:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
> > On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > There are a number of problems with this:
> > 1. History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in
> order to obtain
> > more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just
> makes a mess of
> > the registry and registry related statistics.
> > 2. Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between
> an IPv4 allocation/assignment
> > and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4
> /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
> > Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.
> > IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and
> allocation boundaries that there
> > simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good
> thing, but it means that what you are
> > proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).
> > Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the
> community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is
> not wanted?
> Oy yes “community”
> The proposal got consensus and was recommended for ratification by BoD.
> There has been an appeal against co-chair decision. The Appeal committee
> decision to nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has been
> lets discuss this in Dakar.
> > Owen
> >> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby
> any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of
> ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without
> requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made
> when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained.
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD