Summary

  • IANA’s 18 October page reports 918 ASNs available and marks AFRINIC Not Eligible, using data published on 17 October.
  • AFRINIC’s 18 October file also marks 918 available in block 329728–330751; it records AS329833 as allocated on 16 October.
  • This is a changed, date-bounded signal. The sources do not explain why IANA’s earlier zero-and-Eligible display changed.

The count has moved, and so has the eligibility label. On 16 October, AFRINIC’s extended statistics showed 919 available numbers in its latest 1,024-number block, while IANA’s page showed zero and Eligible. The comparison was unresolved at the time. The current pages tell a different story.

AFRINIC’s 18 October extended file divides block 329728–330751 into 918 available and 106 allocated ASNs. The 16 October comparison had 919 available and 105 allocated. The current file marks AS329833 as allocated with a record date of 16 October. AFRINIC’s format note defines an allocation as a registry action. The file does not identify an operator in a way that supports a public attribution.

The IANA AFRINIC ASN page now also displays 918 available, but labels the registry Not Eligible. Its footer says the chart was updated on 18 October using AFRINIC data published on 17 October. That is one calendar day earlier than the dated AFRINIC file now available here. The counts coincide; the data dates do not.

The eligibility display is not a notice that AFRINIC has received more ASNs. IANA describes eligibility through allocation and reserve thresholds. Its current page reports 90% available, a 17-ASN monthly average over six months, a 34-ASN two-month need and a last IANA allocation of 1,024 ASNs on 25 February. The page does not report a new request or award.

What changed on IANA’s side remains undocumented in these public records. The 16 October capture showed zero and Eligible, based on data published on 15 October; the 18 October page shows 918 and Not Eligible, based on data published on the 17th. The row carries a 16 October record date, but the available sources do not show that it drove IANA’s status change. Nor does the updated count erase what readers could see in the earlier snapshot.

The practical conclusion is narrower than either “the numbers are exhausted” or “the disagreement is permanently resolved.” Today’s public figures share a count, while their date stamps point to different snapshots. No reviewed source establishes a resource shortage, a new IANA allocation, an operational disruption or the reason for the eligibility change.