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

[rpd] Questions for Alain...

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Wed Jun 6 13:34:56 UTC 2018

Hi Andrew,

I know that the SL-BIS policy proposal still giving you insomnia, but relax.

It is bizarre that i co-authored the SL-bis since February 2016 and the Intra-RIR v4 transfer proposal, the 23rd may 2016 and you did not see the so-called conflict.

Now back to your point, i don't see how the SL-bis proposal submitted in February 2016 creates a v4 shortage.  It was about  "fair distribution of the last /8 of v4 and IPv6 deployment":

How does it solve the problem []
2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:

Changing the value of the maximum allocation/assignment size during the exhaustion phase 1.
Imposing IPv6 resources as a pre-condition to IPv4 resource requests during the exhaustion.
Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure and new LIRs or End-Users.
Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over time during the exhaustion period.

and the proposal itself is clear:

-No explicit limit on the number of times an organization may request additional IPv4 address space during Exhaustion Phases(same as the soft landing policy implemented)

We all know how it evolved and how the SL-SD(*) proposal came in and impacted the original proposal.

The Intra-RiR proposal was meant to address justified needs after exhaustion of Afrinic pool or when AFRINIC cant no longer satisfied such needs. It reached consensus (there was no  appeal filled against) and has been implemented.. []

2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
The Policy solves the issue of an African organisation needing IPv4 number resources after the exhaustion of the AFRINIC IPv4 pool or when AFRINIC can no longer satisfy the needs of such an organization.

So, overall fair distribution from the last /8 and other remaining blocks and provisions to cover justified needs inside the region after AFRINIC pool exhaustion. 

Where is this problem ? 

You were accused with your proposal of soft-landing-overhaul(**) to fast track the exhaustion of the AFRINIC pool(distribute the  last /8 with the max  allocation size at /10 instead of the /13 as per current soft landing policy or  /15 proposed by SL-bis proposal ) and i should have followed you if i was acting to promote a v4 market.

Hope this clarifies and helps the discussions.

(**) <>


> On 5 Jun 2018, at 10:29, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> Alain,
> You have actively supported and fought for the new soft landing policy – to artificially restrict space to entities that need it. 
> Now, I’d like to ask – as an author of the soft-landing-bis policy which you have STILL not withdrawn… aren’t you just a LITTLE bit conflicted in trying to create an artificial shortage and make it hard for people to get space – while starting and founding an IP broker in Africa?
> Maybe now we understand the *true* motivations behind the soft landing bis policy….
> <>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
> <>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list