[Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?

Tue Nov 1 16:09:33 UTC 2016

My Contribution through the lines of this message

2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>:

> Hello,
>
> On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.
> com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ø  Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or
> naive..
>
> Not at all, I’m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than
> me.  Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide
> realistic ways of doing this that contain **detailed** proposals of how
> this would be accomplished and what the end results are.
>
>
> There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but
> resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non
>  productive discussions.
>
> The policy proposal was introduced  on the 18 May 2016, and we have had
>  these discussions. RPD  and the  AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available.
>

+1 @Alain

Yes Andrew, we had good discussions  and a new version of the proposal
which  incorporated  the changes  was posted  Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the
link below :

http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic

And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is
cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal.
====

"Just a question about the audit policy….

Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6
assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs
based policy rules?

Thanks"

===
regards

>
> Now  that you have asked again, see below...
>
>
> See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data – and when
> I’m asked for such I provide it – but I will not accept vague positions and
> unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy.
>
>
> a.)    No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be
> realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables
>
>
> Policy proposals do not  dictate implementation, but describe principles
> to action.
>
> The policy  proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign
> before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very
> clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.
> afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa
>
> The policy proposal  says :
>
> ===
>
> 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in
> accordance with the non-exhaustive list below:
>
>    - Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing
>    table.
>    - Breach of AFRINIC policies.
>    - Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or
>    other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and
>    AFRINIC.
>    - Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks
>    have not been transferred.
>    - Unauthorized transfers of resources.
>
> ===
>
> Looking at the global  Internet routing table at a given time is an
> option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an
> indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about
> utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table
> without  being used.
>  Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here.
> What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified
>  needs  and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are  bound to
> collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below.
>
> ===
>
> (b) Cooperation:
>
> (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times
> bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as
> may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service.
>
> (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is
> investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering
> resources already assigned to it.
>
> (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may:
>
>    1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC;
>    2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and
>    future assignment or allocation of numbering resources;
>    3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by
>    AFRINIC.
>
>
> ===
>
> Investigated members to provide  information and data to convince AFRINIC
> which may not need to do  much.
>
> “Say what you do, do what you say and prove it."
>
>
> b.)    No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are
> meant to come from
>
>
> AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the
> RSA. This proposal is just  guidelines on how to implement it.  But if
> there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to  AFRINIC staff to say so.
> The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall
> co-chairs request one ?
>
>
> c.)    No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy
>
>
> I remembered  the discussions on possible abuse on  the “reported” class
> of the policy proposal.
>
> ===
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
>    1. They have requested the review themselves or
>    2. there has been a community complaint made against them that
>    warrants investigation.
>
> ===
>
> This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as
> a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of
> known abuses.
>
> People have been complaining  about flaws in current policies, practices
> which have been abused by some members.
>
> d.)    No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed – then
> the original documentation is in question – and at that point you are by
> the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn’t do
> their jobs when verifying the application in the first place – and if you
> want to make implications like that – you need evidence.
>
>
> The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis
> to all reviews. Questioning  applications approved by Hostmasters is a
> different matter.
>
>
> I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims
> that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere,
>
>
> Ah bon ? I have not heard that.  But in case this exist, I would expect
> this policy proposal to help clear the point.
>
> vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are
> actually reporting on other issues they don’t ever reference.
>
>
> There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further
> analysis and readings of the data.
>
> —Alain
>
>
> Come with real data – real facts – real figures – and then let’s have this
> discussion.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161101/9e004e47/attachment.html>