Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[policy-wg] Guidelines for TemporaryAssignments/Allocations'sproposal

Mark Elkins mje at
Thu Apr 28 12:54:40 UTC 2005

Hi Gents (same old folk)

> > But in the case they are not (like AFNOG, RALL etc...) I think this
> > is addressed somewhere in the proposal where it is stated that AfriNIC
> > may charge for that..(that is apply for commercial training for
> > instance)
> Now I really disagree! With due respect, why should AFNOG, RALL,etc have 
> more right to obtain IP's for a conference then a commercial exhibition? 
> (eg. Auto Africa, WineX, etc.)
> If this proposal is going to be implemented, I see no reason why it should 
> exclude commercial conferences. It should apply to all.

As stated in the Open Forum time in Maputo, I would have loved to have
been able to get temporary address space for the ICANN convention in
Nov/Dec 2004. I really needed a /22 (or better) and ASN. We were
multi-homed to SAIX and UUNET (10-ish Mb each). Both gave me /23's -
which looked OK initially - but we ran out of DHCP addresses a couple of
times... (we had both all the delegates, and all the Hotels other
residence on the net)....

I see no reason why an AfNOG/AfriNIC type meeting could easily also have
multiple LIR's providing transit, whist a separate service carries
connectivity to a local IAX.... the sort of setup that AfNOG attendees
need to be able to be trained in themselves... 
Meanwhile, the training folk need a couple of real ASN's, and other
net-route-able address space.

I would like to think that most IT type shows (Afnog/ICANN - etc) would
probably be (technically) run by people that most people on this list
would know - so they should be allocated from a pool of addresses
labelled "un-lightly to be blacklisted".

Talking to the APNIC people, they re-allocate the same addresses year
after year to the same events and so far have not had any trouble.
This makes preparation of equipment easier (last years configs still
lying around)..

For other (potentially "once-off" events) - use different pools?

> Similarly, if it is going to be implemented, I'd strongly suggest allowing 
> temporary allocations for experimental use as well.

Agreed - and often these would be much longer term allocations - which
should be no problem.

> > It can also happened that the upstream do not have enough space
> > available to allocate to the event ... and could not justify
> > requesting that space for temporary allocation from AfriNIC.
> Realistically how much space does an event need? Seldom more than /24! I 
> just think we need to consider how an ISP small enough that they don't have 
> a /24 spare can have sufficient spare bandwidth to support 254 concurrent 
> users. Also, if it is in the nature of the ISP to provide services that 
> include hosting conferences, then surely this should be stated in their 
> application and as part of their requirements. Remember, no assignment by an 
> LIR is permanent. They assign for the duration of contract with their 
> customer. If they're in the business of short-term contracts, then they need 
> to apply for sufficient address space. They should be able to give any one 
> of their existing conferences/short-term customers as an example.
> I really think that the responsibility for short-term assignments should 
> rest with the LIR. It is their customer, they can take responsibility for 
> addresses that are abused. It is wrong of them to say they do not have 
> enough address space when all they need to do is apply for more from 
> AfriNIC, citing their existing re-assignment information and their immediate 
> requirements for new customers (whether short- or long-term).
> > ... or just that there is no LIR in a country where Workshop
> > will be held ... etc!
> Not acceptable. If the ISP is not an LIR, they are obtaining address space 
> from an upstream who is an LIR. Either way, there exists a perfectly valid 
> mechanism for applying for address space based on accurate re-assignment 
> information and adequate justification. They can apply to their upstream, 
> who in turn can apply to AfriNIC.
> And the country aspect to it is also irrelevent because ultimately the 
> entire globe is served by various RIRs.
> > I think IP address is allocated based on immediate need and
> > planed growth expectation, normally not more that 3 years!
> > So ISP will always get what they need from AfriNIC...but you
> > can not justify allocation form AfriNIC only based on potential
> > temporary allocation!
> I agree if you include the word 'potential'. But I'd be horrified if AfriNIC 
> made temporary allocations baded on 'potential' customers as well.
> One can justify an allocation from AfriNIC based on both your immediate and 
> future needs. If your immediate and future need is to provide addresses to 
> conferences and you can show that (either by demonstrating an example of a 
> previous conference you've hosted or a future one you are hosting), AfriNIC 
> should provide a permanent allocation that takes into consideration your 
> entire business, including short-term customers.
> There is such an unfortunate belief accross Africa that ISPs cannot obtain 
> address space that they need for their valid requirements. This is partly 
> because of monopolistic telcos or LIRs withholding additional space and the 
> fact that they did not meet the minimum criteria in the past. I think we 
> need to address those problems. Maybe an appropriate action will be for 
> AfriNIC to withhold additional address space (or even reclaim existing 
> space) from any LIR that withholds from its customers despite adequate 
> justification on the basis that the LIR is mismanaging their addresses!
> --Greg

  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa.  e.164 VOIP ready
 /| /|       / /__       mje at  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

More information about the RPD mailing list