Search RPD Archives
[IOZ] [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Fwd: AfriNIC position on the future of IP number resources
dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 06:34:17 UTC 2007
On 8/10/07, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
> Hi McTim,
> > First you want lower costs for LIRs, then you want freebies for an
> > undefined
> > number of networks. I would suggest that you can't have lower RIR
> > fees if you give away resources without compensating the RIR for
> > the manpower involved.
> The one has nothing to do with the other.
not sure I buy this.
> A few points to consider:
> - my proposal request for IPv6 allocations for community networks,
> was to be considered part of the training/education and/or marketing
> 'line items' in the budget - from my experience this cost will be
> less than a single training session for which many are planned every
First of all what size "allocation" do you want them to get?
according to "IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites"
They would get an "assignment" of a /48. Is this what you are after?
> - AfriNIC has a surplus every year which has been put into a
> 'reserves' fund. I believe that reserves fund should be reaching an
> acceptable level soon and I will advocate spending that money on
> impacting growth of Internet usage in Africa. To me that means
> supporting educational and awareness campaigns such as proposed
Reserves are a good thing. IIRC, ISOC still does some funding of AfriNIC.
I don't think we can count on that forever.
> - Separate from the community networks proposal I'm still advocating
> lower prices for small and micro ISPs.
Lower than the "Very Small" category on
Just as SMMEs drive economic
> growth, so small ISPs drive growth of Internet usage in Africa. I
> believe this will positively impact the AfriNIC revenues as it
> allows ISPs that would not consider become LIRs to become ones (and
> hence it's increasing the pie, rather than decreasing the revenue or
> profits). BTW, from what I can see in RIPE, and other RIRs, drops in
> prices and not resulted in lower profitability or revenues!
I agree that more LIRs is a good goal, as is lowering fees. I think
these are long term objectives though.
> > On 8/8/07, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
> >> I believe that community networks often use many gateways and
> >> upstreams. It wouldn't make sense to use an assignment from one.
> > Not from one, but from many. Lots of folk multihome using multiple
> > ranges.
> Interesting. So how does this work practically? With NATs?
No NATs needed. The point of having an assignment is to use public addresses.
In the spirit of "a picture is worth a thousand words", I have
attached a slide from an old RIPE training course that shows
graphically how this can be done. Apologies for the proprietary
> > They don't need PI IMHO, and I don't think they should get it for
> > free.
> Ok, so do you think they should pay standard rates? (What I am saying
> is that will basically exclude them from getting any)
It's up to them, they can become an LIR, get an assignment form an LIR
or becom End-Users. I just don't think we as the community should
give freebies to an undefined group of organisations.
> > Third, can you define a community network? I give free WiFi to my
> > neighbors, does this mean I get an ASN and a PI block?
> If you meet the IPv6 and ASN criteria then yes (i.e. you will need to
> have a sufficient number of neighbours like the guys in Scarborough
> who connected up the whole village and now have more than 100
> neighbours on their network.)
ok, then what is sufficient number?
> >>> 3) How many hosts does the WUG network run?
> > If we want a strong, useful RIR, folk have to pay for it.
> Yes. If the big ISPs/networks in Africa were embracing IPv6 I would
> say that we don't need this. If they did less NATs and more v6
> training / support / R&D I would agree that the idea of sponsoring
> community networks has less weight, but these big networks don't see
> the need. Most have more than enough v4 space to outlast the RIRs..
> so they care less...
I'm not sure this is the case.
> > It was always going to be more expensive to start an RIR. Using the
> > resources of an established RIR allowed the costs to be spread over a
> > much wider LIR base.
> We should have lower costs and sufficient economies of scale to be
> able to offer similar pricing. Keep in mind that the price for x-
> large members is the same (assuming they pay in time) as ARINs,
> whereas there is no micro category in AfriNIC. If we want to see
> growth in AfriNIC revenues X-Large AfriNIC members - who pay vastly
> cheaper prices per /24 - in Africa should be paying more whereas
> smaller ones should be paying less.
If you want to see a micro (smaller than Very Small) then propose that.
Keep in mind the minimum allocation size(s) though.
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Multihoming with PA Addresses.ppt
Size: 30208 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the RPD