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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Vincent Ngundi vincent at
Mon Mar 19 13:31:10 UTC 2007

On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> The definition of an organization is not something to be done by  
> AfriNIC, is
> there, is a legal definition and I guess is valid in every country  
> on the
> world (I may be wrong): Whatever is not an individual.
> I agree with a previous comment that a individual can create an
> organization, but typically this is done only if there is a real need
> (creating a business, a non-profit organization, whatever).
Or event to get IPv6 PI space.

> Individuals
> don't tend to do so, especially because it cost money and a lot of  
> paper
> work (every year, or even every month/3 months) to justify the  
> accounting,
> taxes, etc. to the government.
With all due respect, I think that's your opinion.

> If an individual decides to create an organization, that's fine, they
> deserve to be allocated a PI if it is justified by the rest of the  
> criteria.
So in such a case, will we have prevented an *individual* per se from  
getting v6 PI space?

> I also think that the current text doesn't define if the end-site is a
> single "physical location" or allows several. I think it should be the
> later, and end-user-organization make it clear.
> When I did the first PI proposal, it took to me long time and many
> discussions with lot of folks to understand why they were asking me  
> to use
> end-user-organization (in my drafts I was using end-user/end-site
> terminology). Now I'm convinced that this is the right wording, and  
> if we
> can't have an agreement on that, then is clear to me that we will  
> have two
> competing policy proposals. I don't think it helps, but seems there  
> is no
> other way.
> I still don't see the harm that "end-user-organization" creates to the
> intend of your policy. According to the policy proposal itself  
> (section
> "current situation"), reading in between lines, it was meant in  
> order to
> facilitate the consensus (or I'm wrong ?),
You are right and that's exactly what we are doing...this is how  
consensus is reached. We need to be all-inclusive if we are to  
achieve genuine consensus.


> but if we can't do so, it seems
> to me that it was much easier allowing my previous proposal to get  
> evolved
> to match the inputs received in the last policy meeting, instead of  
> creating
> a new one to create confusion and compete.
>> De: Alain Patrick AINA <aalain at>
>> Organización: technologies réseaux et Solutions (
>> Responder a: <aalain at>, AfriNIC Resource Policy  
>> Discussion List
>> <rpd at>
>> Fecha: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:00:20 +0000
>> Para: <rpd at>
>> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy  
>> Proposal:
>> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>> I think so. In principle our policies are not made for individuals
>>> accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this  
>>> case I
>>> think a good justification is to be an organization).
>>> Otherwise one of the missions of the RIRs, the adequate  
>>> management of
>>> address space (not a wasteful one), is not fulfilled.
>> The question  is:  Do we think, the proposed criteria  are good  
>> for what we
>> intend to do with this policy ?
>> If the answer is "no" and the solution is "be an organization",  
>> then let add
>> * "Must be an organization"
>> So, if a "individual" meet the initial  assignments criteria, he  
>> will need to
>> become an organization to qualify.
>>> Please, think in the implications in terms of routing table if  
>>> just a 10%
>>> of the individuals in the world are able to get this resource. Is  
>>> not only
>>> about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope  
>>> with that
>>> for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the  
>>> routing
>>> slots ? Are you willing to pay then for a 10 times more expensive  
>>> router in
>>> your network (you will not have other chance, you are being  
>>> forced to that
>>> if the routing table grows at that point).
>>> We need a balance here.
>> I suspect that, we will need a definition of  "organization"   
>> including size.
>> And are we not meeting folks against this policy  here ?
>> --alain
>> Let us  keep think simple  and move forward.
>> --alain
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal:
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> This electronic message contains information which may be  
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for  
> the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the  
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,  
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, including  
> attached files, is prohibited.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list