[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal- Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02

Thu Jul 30 20:16:53 UTC 2026

Hi Alain, all,

All this was already discussed in the PPM and the list, so in my opinion, nothing of what you say is new as to be considered in the Last Call. The outcome balancing pros and cons, reached consensus. Anyway, a few clarifications follow:

Regarding 3.3.4 in the staff assessment, it say "The procedure will also have to evolve in a way that fraudulent requests are identified, and there is no abusive use of the policy section”, so I don’t see how you’re interpreting this as saying that the proposal text is unconstrained. 3.3.4 is only explaining what member services will need to address for the implementation of the proposal.

As it can be observed across the staff assessment, there are no recommendations or clarifications, so all the details in the proposal, seems to be find for the implementation, without any observations for risks.

Regarding the PPM discussions, it is clear that a policy never is perfect as always we can find ways to improve it, also always bad actors will find ways to abuse it as much as we keep improving it. Shall we then restrict across all the CPM whatever is not exactly matching the text and invalidate examples of usage?. In this case, it is much better having a policy than not being able to have a solutions for real cases that need resources while we have been recovering space so will not create a trouble for the region.

If we, in any proposal, define a set of specific usage cases, without providing the staff a more ample language, it will mean that many cases that we can’t think about when writing a proposal (and discussing it), will remain out of coverage, which is not fair. It is much better to allow the staff to evaluate those cases, that why sufficiently documented to justify the case is good enought.

Regarding “utilization”, this is a problem of the CPM, not specific for this proposal, which means that we should invalidate the complete CPM?

Regarding your point 4, the text say "the relevant request shall be treated”, so clearly the “reset” is only for that request, not all the previous neither future requests. Each request is evaluated individually.

As I already indicated, MDN is a different and broader problem so it could be addressed as another proposal, as i has impacts on other kind of resources, for example IPv6, perhaps ASNs.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 29 jul 2026, a las 14:19, ALAIN AINA via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
> 
> Dear Co‑chairs,
> 
> The proposal, as currently written, remains vulnerable to several forms of abuse and does not align with the principles of responsible resource management, fairness, or predictability in policy application.
> 
> On 15 June 2026, I proposed a more robust and technically grounded solution to the problem the proposal attempts to address, through a Multiple Discrete Networks (MDN) architecture with strict per‑site utilisation rules instead of global per‑organisation utilisation. Reference: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014894.html 
> 
> The author responded that MDN issues “may also happen in the region” but stated that this proposal is not intended to fix that problem. Reference: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014895.html  
> 
> - Staff analysis and PPM discussions
> 
> ++ Member Services (Section 3.3.4)
> 
> Staff highlighted the need for anti‑abuse provisions in operational procedures to allow identification of fraudulent requests. This confirms that the proposal’s current language is insufficiently constrained.
> 
> ++ PPM discussions
> 
> According to the PPM minutes:
> 
>    • A concern was raised that the policy language is too broad and therefore subject to abuse. The author responded:“…if the community later determines that staff are exercising too much discretion or using this flexibility inappropriately, the policy can be amended or clarified through future community action.”
> 
>    • A concern was raised regarding the absence of a clear, objective definition of “utilisation” within the PDP. The co‑chairs committed that the Secretariat would share this definition during Last Call. To my knowledge, this definition has not yet been shared. 
> Reference: https://afrinic.net/ppm-afrinic-37.html 
> 
> - Specific issues with the current text
> 
> 1. Waiver criteria are extremely broad
> 
> The proposal allows AFRINIC to waive the 90% utilisation requirement for:
>    • redundancy
>    • high‑availability
>    • IPv6 transition
>    • expansion to new sites
> These are legitimate technical needs, but easy to claim without evidence, making the clause vulnerable to abuse.
> 
> 2. “Key technical purposes” is undefined
> The phrase is subjective and lacks operational meaning. Without a definition, Hostmasters must rely on interpretation, leading to:
>    • inconsistent decisions
>    • appeals
>    • pressure from members
>    • accusations of unfairness
> 
> 3. “Sufficiently documented” is unenforceable
> The proposal does not specify:
>    • required documentation
>    • required evidence
>    • required topology diagrams
>    • required utilisation metrics
>    • required thresholds
> This makes enforcement arbitrary and unpredictable.
> 
> 4. Treating the request as a “first allocation” resets utilisation
> This is the most problematic clause.
> 
> It allows:
>    • utilisation to reset to 0%
>    • bypassing the 90% rule entirely
>    • repeated claims of “new site” or “redundancy”
>    • accumulation of multiple /22s without ever reaching 90% utilisation
> 
> This is a major abuse vector and contradicts responsible resource management.
> 
> - Possible solution (fully resolves the utilisation barrier)
> 
> A predictable, enforceable solution exists and has already been proposed:
> 
> 1. Replace global utilisation with per‑site utilisation (MDN model)
> This aligns with real network architecture (multi‑PoP, multi‑DC, HA NAT, NAT64/464XLAT) and global RIR practice.
> 
> 2. Remove “treated as first allocation”
> This closes the most significant loophole.
> 
> 3. Replace the waiver with a structured MDN section
> This ensures that exceptions are based on verifiable technical constraints, not subjective interpretation.
> 
> 4. Define strict evidence requirements
> For example:
>    • topology diagrams
>    • BGP announcements
>    • NAT64/HA NAT architecture
>    • per‑site utilisation metrics
>    • proof of disaggregation
>    • proof of IPv6 transition deployment
> 
> 5. Allow per‑site redundancy headroom
> To support HA and failover, allow sub‑allocation to any MDN site at 85% utilisation instead of 90%.
> 
> 
> This approach is technically sound, operationally enforceable, and consistent with the principles of fairness and responsible resource management.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> —Alain
> 
>> On 16 Jul 2026, at 22:08, Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear PDWG,
>> 
>> 
>> Last Call: Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02)
>> 
>> 
>> The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG )Chairs  have initiated a Last Call for this proposal, following rough consensus at the AFRINIC-37 Public Policy Meeting held in hybrid format in Nairobi, Kenya on 24 June 2026.
>> 
>> 
>> *   Proposal Name: Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing
>> 
>> *   Proposal ID: AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02
>> 
>> *   Proposal URL: https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-ipv4-002-draft02.html
>> 
>> .
>> 
>> Last Call closes on : July 31, 2026, at 23:59 UTC.
>> 
>> 
>> The Secretariat will provide an operational definition of "utilisation" during this period to assist with final community review.
>> 
>> 
>> As always, we kindly request that all participants adhere to the AFRINIC Code of Conduct<https://www.afrinic.net/code> to maintain a respectful and professional environment on the mailing list.
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Haitham el Nakhal
>> 
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.