Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
lee.howard at retevia.net
Sun May 12 19:57:32 UTC 2019
On 5/12/19 11:37 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:
> *From:* Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
> review by AFRINIC" informations update
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if
> an issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be
> something fundamentally wrong about it.
I think it is possible for a proposal to be completely sound, and still
not achieve consensus. Sincere people can have different opinions about
how best to serve the community, and that is healthy for the community.
I have reread the proposed policy. 13.4(C) says:
C) Any Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be
assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment Policies.
As I understand the existing policies, in the next few months we will
enter Exhaustion Phase 2, where only a single /12 remains for allocation
(with another /12 reserved for something). If addresses are recovered
under this proposal, could it bring us back to Phase 1, or would we
still be in Phase 2? I'm not sure that can be addressed in this
proposal; it may need a different proposal.
Also, I think the proposal intends that "Breach of AFRINIC policies"
would include not having 50% utilization within twelve months of
allocation. It is unclear to me from the text of the proposal whether
all addresses would be reclaimed, or only the non-compliant allocation,
or only the portion that is non-compliant. For example, if I have a
total of a /19, and my latest allocation was a /22, and I've only
assigned one /24 from the latest allocation, would AFRINIC reclaim three
/24s, the /22, or the /19?
A clarification on which resources would be reclaimed would address
Melvin's concern about end users being disconnected. I suggest:
"AFRNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
addresses found to be noncompliant."
The wording in 13.3.3(B) says I won't be audited again for 24 months if
I have the same resources (portfolio). But if I get another /22, I might
get another complete audit? Would it be reasonable to ask that the
audited resources can't be audited again, but new ones can? Either that,
or that an organization that has been audited can't be audited for 24
months. I think random audit should be included (that is, the 24 month
window does not currently cover 13.3.2 (random audit)).
I'm not certain whether I would support or oppose this proposal. I
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD