Search RPD Archives
[policy-wg] Guidelines for TemporaryAssignments/Allocations'sproposal
dogwallah at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 15:23:20 UTC 2005
Those in Mauputo know that I think this is a useful policy, I will try
to summarise my reasons and reax to objections on list.
This (temporary need) is a corner case, but one that needs to be
addressed. There are (and have been) events in Africa which would
like to use their own IP space. They should be able to get an End
User (provider independent) block if they want. This would allow for
multihoming, control of their reverse and routing, etc. Using a PA
block will not always allow this.
On 4/28/05, Gregory Massel <gregm at datapro.co.za> wrote:
> > I agree with you but this temporary allocation space will be done
> > from a special address pool ... and event when returned, they are
> > put in quarantine for some time before being reallocated (12 months?)!
> A number of blacklists do not automatically delist addresses after a long
> period. They only do so on complaints. This policy is also highly open to
> abuse by spammers. A less prescriptive application procedure (easier to
> fudge the application) for recyclable addresses.
The above might be true in theory, but the other RIRs with temp. ass.
policies have not reported these problems with temporary assignments.
As always, YMMV.
In fact, some conference organisers are quite happy to use a block
that has been in use the week before by another conference.
Nevertheless, quarantine doesn't cost anything and is generally a good
As for the spammers theory, again, this doesn't seem to be the case in
practice in other regions. If abuse happens, the community can always
amend the policy as and when needed.
> > 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.)
As I read the policy they have the same ´`right``. The policy seems
to be flexible enough to allow for some discretion by the registration
svcs staff in re: payment.
I don´t have a problem with this if it allows AfriNIC to charge
commercial users for IP space, as everyone else is charged in the
current funding model. I have no problem with giving RS staff
discretion to make exceptions either. I understand why some will see
this as strange, however the merit outweighs any inequity in my mind.
> If this proposal is going to be implemented, I see no reason why it should
> exclude commercial conferences. It should apply to all.
It doesn´t exclude commercial activities, but I agree, the wording
could be misunderstood by some. How about:
3.2 Commercial Use Prohibited
If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for
commercial purposes or any activities that were not documented in the
original description provided above, AfriNIC reserves the right to
immediately withdraw the resource and reassign it to the free pool.
Does that sound better?
> Similarly, if it is going to be implemented, I'd strongly suggest allowing
> temporary allocations for experimental use as well.
"2.0 Documenting the temporary activity" does use the term
experiments, so they are allowed in this policy as well.
> > 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
yes, probably true, however, this policy is about corner cases, so
there will be exceptions to the above, and they should be allowed for
in some way. This policy does that.
> 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.
Do you have a spare /16 for such a customer? How about a spare /32 v6
block? I think most do not, and this is the utility of this policy.
> 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.
see multihoming above. If an event wants to have 3 providers, and 2
of them refuse to route the LIRs space (or the LIR refuses to allow
the other two to route their space), then the perfectly valid
mechanism breaks down for this user.
One size does not fit all.
> 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!
This is another sort of policy altogether and deserves it´s own discussion. ,-)
What happens if no LIR can provide appropriate v6 addressing to the
Tunis WGIG meeting (for whatever reason). This might be seen as a
failure of the current IP distribution scheme, which would be
unhelpful in terms of promoting AfriNIC as the sole IP registry in
This may be a layer 9 thing, but another reason to adopt this policy AFAIAC.
Thanks Alain for putting it forward.
More information about the RPD