Hello Douglas an all,
On 15-May-09, at 12:08 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote:
SM,
I am calling on Alain to help with the stat analysis for the current
usage trends vs our assignment policy.
an up to date analysis of the allocations trend for the past
10 years and an updated version of the document available at:
http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm
will be circulated soon. In the mean time some raw data can
be accessed at:
http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/index.htm
http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/resource_search.htm
http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_resources.htm
Thanks
- a.
I will incorporate the new definitions.
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.
Regards,
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329
If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, SM <[email protected]> wrote:
From: SM <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: "Douglas Onyango" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 5:18 PM
Hi Douglas,
At 06:19 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> 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
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:
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?
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.
> My definitions contains the following.......
[snip]
> (c) New LIR´s 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.
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.
I suggest a change to the definitions:
(b) Existing LIR´s An existing LIR is defined as being an
organization that
assigns address space to 'end-users' and who has already been
assigned or allocated
IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.
(c) New LIR´s A new LIR is defined as being an organization that
assigns address
space to 'end-users' and who is a member of AfriNIC but has not
been assigned or
allocated any IPv4 address space prior to the Exhaustion phase.
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?
"A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8
pool. This
/16 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AfriNIC for some
future uses,
as yet unforeseen."
I suggest using "reserved" instead of preserved.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
