[AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update

[SM]

Hi Douglas,
At 00:07 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>Not sure i fully understood your first question.

IPv4 is a public resource which AfriNIC manages on behalf of its 
constituents.  As we move towards the IPv4 address exhaustion, there 
will be a scarcity for IPv4 addresses.  The proposal is to ensure a 
fair allocation from the limited pool of IPv4 addresses.  Without 
that, a large network or country can end up with a larger slice of 
the pool.  This will have a negative impact on countries or networks 
that experience a slower growth.

There are a few cable links currently being deployed on the 
continent.  Once the infrastructure is there, we may see more demand 
for IP address space within these countries.  It's only when AfriNIC 
turns down their IPv4 allocation request that they will understand 
the consequences of this proposed policy.  It will be too late to 
overturn the policy once the IPv4 address pool is exhausted.

Before devising a policy for managing the last /8 IPv4 address pool, 
we should review IPv4 address usage in the region over the last years 
and do a projection to find out how long the IPv4 address pool will 
last.  We should take into account the number of LIRs and see that 
there is a fair distribution.

Your proposal specifies that a LIR can be allocated a /23 (IPv4 
maximum allocation size) and four additional /23.  My question is 
about whether the aggregate allocation (one + four) will allow 
equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs.  To put it 
differently, how did you reach these numbers?

>This policy is meant to help in the transition from v4 to v6, and as 
>such every initiative to help people move in the direction of v6 
>would be a good one. one of them is availing the addresses (if they 
>don't have any)

Getting people to adopt IPv6 is a good initiative.  But that should 
not turn out into dishing out IP address space if the assignee does 
not justify the request.  If members do not have any IPv6 address 
space, it is generally because:

  (i) they are not implementing IPv6 on their network

  (ii) they plan to extend IPv4 lifetime through by using NAT

An IPv6 address allocation won't change that.  If you want to help 
the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, you can specify that the member 
shows a migration plan.  However, I don't think that it's a good 
strategy as AfriNIC cannot tell people how they should run their networks.

Regards,
-sm