<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Graham,<br>YI would like to say in our original policy we suggested making a v6 adoption plan approved as part of the requirements for v4 in this phase, but there was the general consensus that as RIR's we shall be over stepping our boundaries if we made anything along these lines mandatory.<br><br>On the issue of LIR's being oblivious, i think it should be possible for us to avail some v4 exahustion info as part of the Agreement signed for the allocation so that there is mandatory reading and signing after which a plea of ignorance should not be an issue.<br><br>Regards,<br>Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329<br>
If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.<br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 5/16/09, rpd-request@afrinic.net <i><rpd-request@afrinic.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: rpd-request@afrinic.net <rpd-request@afrinic.net><br>Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4<br>To: rpd@afrinic.net<br>Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:21 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail">Send rpd mailing list submissions to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a
ymailto="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd-owner@afrinic.net">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (SM)<br> 2. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (Graham Beneke)<br> 3. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (Graham Beneke)<br> 4. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (SM)<br> 5. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (SM)<br> 6. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Douglas Onyango)<br> 7. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Adiel A. Akplogan)<br> 8. Re:
Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (SM)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:18:59 -0700<br>From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>To: Douglas Onyango <<a ymailto="mailto:ondouglas@yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=ondouglas@yahoo.com">ondouglas@yahoo.com</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:6.2.5.6.2.20090514064812.03398de0@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=6.2.5.6.2.20090514064812.03398de0@resistor.net">6.2.5.6.2.20090514064812.03398de0@resistor.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed<br><br>Hi Douglas,<br>At 06:19 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:<br>>Correct, its the four
allocations in the <br>>exhaustion phase here....because the proposal <br>>cuts from the current allocation phase into the <br>>Exhaustion phase, the "Additional" word i believe is not misplaced<br><br>I made a mistake when I wrote the question. It <br>should be "Why" instead of "Which". As my <br>question was not answered, I'll ask it again:<br><br>My question is about whether the aggregate <br>allocation (one + four) will allow equitable <br>distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs. To <br>put it differently, how did you reach these numbers?<br><br>Leo and Graham commented on setting the limit for <br>IPv4 address space that can be allocated during <br>the Exhaustion phase. I believe that we are asking similar questions.<br><br>>My definitions contains the following.......<br><br>[snip]<br><br>>(c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being an <br>>organization which has recently become a member <br>>of
AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned or allocated any IPv4 address space.<br><br>It's better not to use "recently"? You are <br>proposing a policy that AfriNIC will have to <br>implement. If the policy is unclear, AfriNIC <br>will have to interpret the intent and that may cause problems.<br><br>I suggest a change to the definitions:<br><br> (b) Existing LIRīs An existing LIR is defined as being an organization that<br> assigns address space to 'end-users' and who <br>has already been assigned or allocated<br> IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.<br><br> (c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being <br>an organization that assigns address<br> space to 'end-users' and who is a member of <br>AfriNIC but has not been assigned or<br> allocated any IPv4 address space prior to the Exhaustion phase.<br><br>There is a definition for Critical Infrastructure <br>Provider.
However, there is no mention of them <br>in the policy. Are they covered by the Soft landing policy?<br><br> "A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8 pool. This<br> /16 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AfriNIC for some future uses,<br> as yet unforeseen."<br><br>I suggest using "reserved" instead of preserved.<br><br>Regards,<br>-sm <br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:37:13 +0200<br>From: Graham Beneke <<a ymailto="mailto:graham-ml@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham-ml@apolix.co.za">graham-ml@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update<br>To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <<a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:4A0C64D9.7000204@apolix.co.za"
href="/mc/compose?to=4A0C64D9.7000204@apolix.co.za">4A0C64D9.7000204@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br><br>McTim wrote:<br>> <br>> I would object to this as being too restrictive. We want to encourage<br>> v6 uptake, not mandate it. It's not our place to mandate to other<br>> orgs what protocols they use, is it?<br>> <br><br>We set mandates on plenty of other things - like how much IPv4 space you<br>may get, what types of ASNs you may use and so forth.<br><br>This policy is for a softlanding - there must be a point at which we<br>make it clear to the LIRs that continuing with IPv4-only networks is not<br>viable. If we just continue to handout IPv4 prefixes then we will have a<br>very hard landing one day when AfriNIC just says "Sorry no more<br>addresses" and LIRs respond "Why? You gave us addresses last week"<br><br>Perhaps we don't want to do this with all allocations from our last /8
-<br>but there must be a threshold when we completely change our attitude to<br>allocations.<br><br>-- <br>Graham Beneke<br>Apolix Internet Services<br>E-Mail/MSN/Jabber: <a ymailto="mailto:graham@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham@apolix.co.za">graham@apolix.co.za</a> Skype: grbeneke<br>VoIP: 087-750-5696 Cell: 082-432-1873<br><a href="http://www.apolix.co.za/" target="_blank">http://www.apolix.co.za/</a><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:42:54 +0200<br>From: Graham Beneke <<a ymailto="mailto:graham-ml@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham-ml@apolix.co.za">graham-ml@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a
ymailto="mailto:4A0C662E.8060005@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=4A0C662E.8060005@apolix.co.za">4A0C662E.8060005@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br><br>SM wrote:<br>> Your proposal specifies that a LIR can be allocated a /23 (IPv4 maximum<br>> allocation size) and four additional /23. My question is about whether<br>> the aggregate allocation (one + four) will allow equitable distribution<br>> of IPv4 addresses among LIRs.<br><br>This brings me to another of the reasons for having a range of possible<br>allocation sizes. If an LIR knows that they will need 4x /23 then I<br>would much prefer that we allocate them 1 x /21 and not 4 fragments of<br>address space.<br><br>The routing table size has been clearly identified is a looming problem<br>for the global internet. Let is not fragment the IP space any more than<br>we have to.<br><br>-- <br>Graham Beneke<br>Apolix Internet
Services<br>E-Mail/MSN/Jabber: <a ymailto="mailto:graham@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham@apolix.co.za">graham@apolix.co.za</a> Skype: grbeneke<br>VoIP: 087-750-5696 Cell: 082-432-1873<br><a href="http://www.apolix.co.za/" target="_blank">http://www.apolix.co.za/</a><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:43:37 -0700<br>From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update<br>To: Graham Beneke <<a ymailto="mailto:graham-ml@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham-ml@apolix.co.za">graham-ml@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <<a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>Message-ID:
<<a ymailto="mailto:6.2.5.6.2.20090514122124.03447208@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=6.2.5.6.2.20090514122124.03447208@resistor.net">6.2.5.6.2.20090514122124.03447208@resistor.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed<br><br>Hi Graham,<br>At 11:37 14-05-2009, Graham Beneke wrote:<br>>We set mandates on plenty of other things - like how much IPv4 space you<br>>may get, what types of ASNs you may use and so forth.<br>><br>>This policy is for a softlanding - there must be a point at which we<br>>make it clear to the LIRs that continuing with IPv4-only networks is not<br>>viable. If we just continue to handout IPv4 prefixes then we will have a<br>>very hard landing one day when AfriNIC just says "Sorry no more<br>>addresses" and LIRs respond "Why? You gave us addresses last week"<br><br>If a LIR is not aware of IPv4 address exhaustion, then it is living <br>in a cocoon. Given the level of
preparedness in the AfriNIC region, <br>I would imagine a hard landing. However, there are is a factor <br>(resource utilization) that might work in favor of the region. The <br>soft landing policy is to mitigate the issue of IPv4 address <br>exhaustion instead of solving it.<br><br>Regards,<br>-sm <br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 5<br>Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:24:11 -0700<br>From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update<br>To: Graham Beneke <<a ymailto="mailto:graham-ml@apolix.co.za" href="/mc/compose?to=graham-ml@apolix.co.za">graham-ml@apolix.co.za</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:6.2.5.6.2.20090514124402.0344d4b0@resistor.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=6.2.5.6.2.20090514124402.0344d4b0@resistor.net">6.2.5.6.2.20090514124402.0344d4b0@resistor.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed<br><br>Hi Graham,<br>At 11:42 14-05-2009, Graham Beneke wrote:<br>>This brings me to another of the reasons for having a range of possible<br>>allocation sizes. If an LIR knows that they will need 4x /23 then I<br>>would much prefer that we allocate them 1 x /21 and not 4 fragments of<br>>address space.<br>><br>>The routing table size has been clearly identified is a looming problem<br>>for the global internet. Let is not fragment the IP space any more than<br>>we have to.<br><br>On one hand we have to manage the IPv4 addresses and on the other the <br>routing table size. By choosing a policy of not fragmenting the IPv4 <br>address space further (allocating a larger block), AfriNIC will have <br>less IPv4 addresses to allocate to
LIRs.<br><br>Regards,<br>-sm <br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 6<br>Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT)<br>From: Douglas Onyango <<a ymailto="mailto:ondouglas@yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=ondouglas@yahoo.com">ondouglas@yahoo.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>To: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:445805.67821.qm@web52112.mail.re2.yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=445805.67821.qm@web52112.mail.re2.yahoo.com">445805.67821.qm@web52112.mail.re2.yahoo.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>SM,<br>I am calling on Alain to help with the stat analysis for the current usage trends vs our assignment policy.<br><br>I will incorporate the new
definitions.<br><br>The version on the Afrinic site is not current, please use the copy on the mailing list, doesn't have mention of critical infrastructure, we removed it as we found it infeasible to make allocation to critical infrastructure from the the /16 we are reserving.<br><br>Regards,<br>Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329<br><br>If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.<br><br>--- On Thu, 5/14/09, SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>To: "Douglas Onyango" <<a ymailto="mailto:ondouglas@yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=ondouglas@yahoo.com">ondouglas@yahoo.com</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 5:18 PM<br><br>Hi Douglas,<br>At 06:19 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:<br>> Correct, its the four allocations in the exhaustion phase here....because the proposal cuts from the current allocation phase into the Exhaustion phase, the "Additional" word i believe is not misplaced<br><br>I made a mistake when I wrote the question. It should be "Why" instead of "Which". As my question was not answered, I'll ask it again:<br><br>My question is about whether the aggregate allocation (one + four) will allow equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs. To put it differently, how did you reach these numbers?<br><br>Leo and Graham commented on setting the limit for IPv4 address space that can be allocated during the Exhaustion phase. I believe that we are asking similar questions.<br><br>> My definitions contains the
following.......<br><br>[snip]<br><br>> (c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being an organization which has recently become a member of AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned or allocated any IPv4 address space.<br><br>It's better not to use "recently"? You are proposing a policy that AfriNIC will have to implement. If the policy is unclear, AfriNIC will have to interpret the intent and that may cause problems.<br><br>I suggest a change to the definitions:<br><br> (b) Existing LIRīs An existing LIR is defined as being an organization that<br> assigns address space to 'end-users' and who has already been assigned or allocated<br> IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.<br><br> (c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being an organization that assigns address<br> space to 'end-users' and who is a member of AfriNIC but has not been assigned
or<br> allocated any IPv4 address space prior to the Exhaustion phase.<br><br>There is a definition for Critical Infrastructure Provider. However, there is no mention of them in the policy. Are they covered by the Soft landing policy?<br><br> "A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8 pool. This<br> /16 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AfriNIC for some future uses,<br> as yet unforeseen."<br><br>I suggest using "reserved" instead of preserved.<br><br>Regards,<br>-sm <br><br><br><br> <br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090515/79f1a083/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090515/79f1a083/attachment-0001.htm</a><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 7<br>Date: Fri, 15
May 2009 13:06:16 +0400<br>From: "Adiel A. Akplogan" <<a ymailto="mailto:adiel@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=adiel@afrinic.net">adiel@afrinic.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>To: Douglas Onyango <<a ymailto="mailto:ondouglas@yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=ondouglas@yahoo.com">ondouglas@yahoo.com</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:B6AA4717-E08A-4E2D-A269-D053A450B966@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=B6AA4717-E08A-4E2D-A269-D053A450B966@afrinic.net">B6AA4717-E08A-4E2D-A269-D053A450B966@afrinic.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes<br><br>Hello Douglas an all,<br><br>On 15-May-09, at 12:08 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote:<br><br>> SM,<br>> I am calling on Alain to help with the stat analysis for the current <br>> usage trends vs our
assignment policy.<br><br>an up to date analysis of the allocations trend for the past<br>10 years and an updated version of the document available at: <a href="http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm</a><br><br>will be circulated soon. In the mean time some raw data can<br>be accessed at:<br><br><a href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/index.htm</a><br><br><a href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/resource_search.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/resource_search.htm</a><br><br><a href="http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm</a><br><br>Thanks<br><br>- a.<br>><br>><br>> I will incorporate the new definitions.<br>><br>> The version on the Afrinic site is not current, please use the copy <br>>
on the mailing list, doesn't have mention of critical <br>> infrastructure, we removed it as we found it infeasible to make <br>> allocation to critical infrastructure from the the /16 we are <br>> reserving.<br>><br>> Regards,<br>> Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329<br>> If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.<br>><br>> --- On Thu, 5/14/09, SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>> To: "Douglas Onyango" <<a ymailto="mailto:ondouglas@yahoo.com" href="/mc/compose?to=ondouglas@yahoo.com">ondouglas@yahoo.com</a>><br>> Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 5:18 PM<br>><br>> Hi Douglas,<br>> At 06:19 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:<br>> > Correct, its the four allocations in the exhaustion phase <br>> here....because the proposal cuts from the current allocation phase <br>> into the Exhaustion phase, the "Additional" word i believe is not <br>> misplaced<br>><br>> I made a mistake when I wrote the question. It should be "Why" <br>> instead of "Which". As my question was not answered, I'll ask it <br>> again:<br>><br>> My question is about whether the aggregate allocation (one + four) <br>> will allow equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs. To <br>> put it differently, how did you reach these numbers?<br>><br>> Leo and Graham commented on setting the limit for IPv4 address space
<br>> that can be allocated during the Exhaustion phase. I believe that <br>> we are asking similar questions.<br>><br>> > My definitions contains the following.......<br>><br>> [snip]<br>><br>> > (c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being an organization which <br>> has recently become a member of AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned <br>> or allocated any IPv4 address space.<br>><br>> It's better not to use "recently"? You are proposing a policy that <br>> AfriNIC will have to implement. If the policy is unclear, AfriNIC <br>> will have to interpret the intent and that may cause problems.<br>><br>> I suggest a change to the definitions:<br>><br>> (b) Existing LIRīs An existing LIR is defined as being an <br>> organization that<br>> assigns address space to 'end-users' and who has already been <br>>
assigned or allocated<br>> IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.<br>><br>> (c) New LIRīs A new LIR is defined as being an organization that <br>> assigns address<br>> space to 'end-users' and who is a member of AfriNIC but has not <br>> been assigned or<br>> allocated any IPv4 address space prior to the Exhaustion phase.<br>><br>> There is a definition for Critical Infrastructure Provider. <br>> However, there is no mention of them in the policy. Are they <br>> covered by the Soft landing policy?<br>><br>> "A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8 <br>> pool. This<br>> /16 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AfriNIC for some <br>> future uses,<br>> as yet unforeseen."<br>><br>> I suggest using "reserved" instead of
preserved.<br>><br>> Regards,<br>> -sm<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> rpd mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 8<br>Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:10:52 -0700<br>From: SM <<a ymailto="mailto:sm@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=sm@resistor.net">sm@resistor.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2<br>To: "Adiel A. Akplogan" <<a ymailto="mailto:adiel@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=adiel@afrinic.net">adiel@afrinic.net</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a
ymailto="mailto:6.2.5.6.2.20090516090926.027cf318@resistor.net" href="/mc/compose?to=6.2.5.6.2.20090516090926.027cf318@resistor.net">6.2.5.6.2.20090516090926.027cf318@resistor.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed<br><br>Hi Adiel,<br>At 02:06 15-05-2009, Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:<br>>an up to date analysis of the allocations trend for the past<br>>10 years and an updated version of the document available at: <br>><a href="http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm</a><br>><br>>will be circulated soon. In the mean time some raw data can<br>>be accessed at:<br><br>Thanks. Could you post an announcement once an updated version is available?<br><br>Regards,<br>-sm <br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>rpd mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br><br><br>End of rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4<br>**********************************<br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>