Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
sm at resistor.net
Thu May 14 08:27:11 UTC 2009
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.
More information about the RPD