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

[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Owen DeLong owen at
Sun May 12 21:29:00 UTC 2019

> On May 12, 2019, at 12:57 , Lee Howard <lee.howard at> wrote:
> On 5/12/19 11:37 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:
>> From: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at> <mailto:melvinc0730 at>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
>> To: rpd at <mailto:rpd at>
>> Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
>> Hi
>> 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:

It likely addresses his concern in the case of non-compliance for utilization. It likely does not address his concern in case of other forms of non-compliance (e.g. record keeping failures or publication failures).

There’s also the issue of the fact that current policy, as written, conflates advertisement with utilization, so it is entirely possible for customers to be connected to a service for some private network and then suffer due to reclamation if the addresses aren’t advertised.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list