Search RPD Archives
[IOZ] [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Fwd: AfriNIC position on the future of IP number resources
Adiel A. Akplogan
adiel at afrinic.net
Tue Aug 14 07:53:49 UTC 2007
Just to clarify that IP addresses should be seen as commodity, but
technical Public resource make available to IP Networks Operators
mainly based on Need. So it is completely irrelevant to compare IP
addresses with any toys or product and the marketing practice which
goes with it.
>On 13 Aug 2007, at 8:34 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>First you want lower costs for LIRs, then you want freebies for an
>>>>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.
>Maybe I can explain it more simply. If I'm selling appleberrys (new
>funky device running a new O/s), and there are ten people out there
>that will buy one. If I made 15, then the chances are if I give two
>or three away (to gals that would never have bought one, but they
>have really large breasts and they love them), then there's a good
>chance that I will be able to sell another two (just because these
>ladies told everyone how cool they are). ie. because I gave two away
>(and spent some time with the ladies showing them how to use the new
>O/s), I sold another two. This is common business practice, (heavily
>used by many of your other - commercial - suppliers).
>>>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?
>Yes, I think I said as per PI policy....?
>>>- 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
>>I don't think we can count on that forever.
>Various activities are sponsored for various reasons. That's not
>Good point though, as per my proposal, I believe that AfriNIC are in
>an ideal position to obtain sponsorship for this too...
>I guess it could come down to the debate, what results in more/better
>skills: AfNOG/AfriNIC training or free PI space to community
>networks? I'd prefer not to go down that path as I don't think it's
>an either or. Both are good and I'm sure that there are another half
>a dozen good ideas worth considering.
>Adiel, can you enumerate the direct cost of processing an IPv6 PI
>>>- Separate from the community networks proposal I'm still advocating
>>>lower prices for small and micro ISPs.
>>Lower than the "Very Small" category on
>>I agree that more LIRs is a good goal, as is lowering fees. I think
>>these are long term objectives though.
>AFAIK, the board has accumulated over a years worth of operating
>expenses in surplus over the past couple of years. I congratulate
>those responsible (albeit that I personally cannot see why they would
>really need it, kind of like the few small gold coins my dad has
>hidden away in some drawer). In any case I am proposing a well
>recognized concept of price elasticity (which I don't feel exists at
>the large ISP level).
>Please can you explain why you feel this should wait longer?
>>>>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
>>>Interesting. So how does this work practically? With NATs?
>>In the spirit of "a picture is worth a thousand words", I have
>We've done this. It worked (partially) for a while.. until it
>broke.... and broke again .... and then the LIR3 changed their policy
>and said they won't announce LIR2's space, blah blah... Also, it
>doesn't work properly because of the global routes at higher levels.
>I wouldn't do this again.... Even NATs are more reliable :(
>>>>They don't need PI IMHO, and I don't think they should get it for
>>>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.
>If it's the 'undefined' part, then I think we can get over that. If
>you don't think any network should get a sponsored assignment, I'd
>like to understand why?
>>>>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?
>As per PI policy criteria... I think I said that?
>>If you want to see a micro (smaller than Very Small) then propose
>I think that we (Africans) need to do more stuff. We have the lowest
>number of assignments and usage in the world. I think what the guys
>from AfriNIC are doing is good. I'm just trying to help us all do
>better. AfriNIC need not follow the rest of the world. We need to be
>innovative and responsive. I'm supportive and grateful for all the
>positive comments that go on the list and I think constructive debate
>Tel: +27 21 409-7997
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at afrinic.net
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
>269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 13/08/2007 10:15
More information about the RPD