<html aria-label="message body"><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">I will be happy myself with the text changes that you proposed.<div><br></div><div>Let’s make sure other folks agree/disagree and specially it will be awesome to get a confirmation from the staff that this doesn’t create excessive burden to them for the evaluation of the request, and we don’t miss the deadline for a v2.<div><br></div><div>Tks!<br><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div>
<div>Regards,<br>Jordi<br><br>@jordipalet<br><br></div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>El 21 may 2026, a las 16:56, Jaco Kroon <jaco@uls.co.za> escribió:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><p>Hi,</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2026/05/21 16:36, jordi.palet--- via
RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi and tks again,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see your point that seems to easy, but we shall remember
that you need to demonstrate the need to Afrinic *every time*
you do a request. So if you say, I will build not 1 but 3 DCs,
you will need to show contracts, right?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is the same as when you request a bigger address block than
what policies dictate, you need to justify the need, have
network diagrams, etc.. If you need to deploy 4 NAT64 PoPs, you
need to show the contracts, even the invoices for the NAT64
boxes, etc.</div>
</blockquote>
Well, right now I don't think you can get more than /22 no matter
how well you can illustrate that. I would not mind being able to
consolidate the resources that I have into a single block, however,
there's one black that would be exceptionally hard to renumber (And
I believe this is part of your point about renumbering).
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All that are operational details, with don’t go into policy
text. We want to avoid micromanagement of the RIR as much as
possible, only got into the details if they are going to
(clearly) do it wrong (or done wrong already previously).</div>
</blockquote>
I agree. But we also want policy to be clear so as to avoid
misinterpretation - accidentally or otherwise.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a request for 4 /24 for 4 NAT64 PoPs is fraudulent, the
service agreement already enable Afrinic to review that and
reclaim the space. I don’t think in general, people want to
break rules on purpose.</div>
</blockquote>
Agree, I expect most people to be rule-abiding and well-intentioned
individuals.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also I think asking for demonstrating that it can’t be done
with renumbering is too expensive (just the exercise to analyze
is it often a big hurdle), renumbering is extremely hard, and
imposing this may go against some IPv6 deployments “the
deployment cost me x and also I need to check if I can do it
with renumbering first, then I just do with the renumbering, at
least for some time”.</div>
</blockquote>
Ok.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>****** Now, if the staff believes that they need some
explicit text to demonstrate the need, please say so before
the policy proposal submission deadline, because in that case,
we still have time to incorporate that text into a v2.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>May be something such as:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“<span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The
above requirement is waived for network operators requesting
new IP addresses for </span>demonstrated<span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> key
technical needs – such as redundancy and high-availability
sites, IPv6 transition technologies, or expansion to new sites
which pose a technical constraint on their current resource
pool – and in these cases, the request is treated as a first
allocation or request.</span>"</div>
</blockquote><p>How about:<br>
<br>
“<span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The
above requirement is waived for network operators requesting new
</span><span style="font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">IPv4</span><span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
addresses for </span>demonstrated<span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> key
technical </span><span style="font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">requirements,
which can be illustrated to not be practically serviceable from
existing assigned/allocated IPv4 resources</span><span style="color: rgb(209, 94, 20); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> –
such as redundancy and high-availability sites, IPv6 transition
technologies, or expansion to new sites which pose a technical
constraint on their current resource pool – and in these cases,
the request is treated as a first allocation or request.</span>"</p><p>As you say, there could be practical limitations that could
potentially be alleviated by renumbering but where it isn't
practical to do so, so I believe this hits more the middle ground,
I hope.</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:44FDA4A2-B9AF-47C8-81AE-73CFB1982E5B@consulintel.es">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Repeating myself:</div>
<div>I think overall, this way to approach what do to with the
recovered space helps Africa to improve Internet penetration
tied to IPv6 deployment, specially because dual-stack is not
longer possible, so this helps IPv6 + IPv4aaS, so it is clearly
in support of IPv6 deployment.</div>
</blockquote><p>I agree. I just feel extremely sorry for those entities that
were forced to approach leasing entities in order to obtain some
IPv4 space that may now have that space revoked again ... refer to
the other discussion.<br>
<br>
Appreciate the discussion, use it don't use it, I think this is
fine as is, my preference has been made known.</p><p>Kind regards,<br>
Jaco</p>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>