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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Ability to Transfer IPv4 addresses from a member to any company

McTim dogwallah at
Fri Feb 4 19:29:02 UTC 2011

Hi all,

Comments inline:

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:07 PM,  <sm+afrinic at> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> At 07:41 04-02-11, Jackson Muthili wrote:


>> Draft Policy Name: Transfer of IPv4 addresses to any entity.
>> Author: Jackson Muthili | jacksonmuthi at | IP Consultant
>> Submission Date: February 5th 2011
>> 1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>> The ICANN/IANA address pool is finished. Sooner, the RIR address pool will
>> also get depleted. It is possible that there will be continued demand for
>> IPv4 addresses long after the AfriNIC pool is depleted. New ISPs (and those
>> growing their existing networks) that do not want (for various reasons) to
>> consider IPv6 will be looking for IPv4 addresses.

Should we as a community encourage this? I got the feeling in JoBurg,
that folk were pretty much in agreement that IPv6 should be

This proposal attempts to
>> propose a legitimate way for such ISPs to acquire IPv4 addresses from
>> existing AfriNIC members (legacy or not) who wish to give away some
>> addresses (with some consideration or otherwise).

Well if it involves "consideration", it's not giving, it's leasing
(sales not allowed under the current IP address distribution system).

>> 2.0 The Proposal
>>  2.1 Legacy members can transfer part or all of their IPv4 addresses to
>> any company. The criteria below will apply:
>>     - The company to which the addresses are transferred may or may not
>> enter into agreement with AfriNIC.
>>     - The legacy member may or may not inform AfriNIC about the
>> transaction.

so no database update required?  The whole point of the AfriNIC WHOIS
Db is so that ppl can contact network operators when network issues
arise.  says:

"If an LIR plans to exchange or transfer address space, it needs to
contact AfriNIC so that the changes are properly registered."

>>     - AfriNIC will accord the third party all relevant access to services
>> and benefits normally available to legacy members.

What is a "legacy member"??  So AfriNIC will provide service, but they
won't receive any revenue for these services?  Doesn't sound very
sustainable to me.

>>  2.2 Paying AfriNIC members can transfer part or all of their IPv4
>> addresses to any company. The criteria below will apply:
>>    - The company to which the addresses are transferred must enter into
>> agreement with AfriNIC.

Do you mean the Registration Services Agreement?

>>    - The transfer and needs analysis cannot be based on any current
>> policies.

So we just throw out all of our policies regarding needs based
allocation and assignment?  says:

9.5 Validity of an assignment

Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria on which the
assignment was based are still in place and the assignment is
registered in the AfriNIC database. An assignment is therefore invalid
if it is not registered in the database and if the purpose for which
it was registered has changed or no longer holds.

We just reached consensus on the policy to extend the lifetime of
IPv4.  This proposal would reverse that by creating a market for v4
addresses, so LIRs would have an incentive to get as much as they can
as fast as they can so they can flog it off to ppl that they may not
even be providing connectivity too?

IIRC, it was also the sense of the community that addresses should
stay in Africa, per the Soft-Landing Policy just passed.  This
proposal would make it impossible for AfriNIC to ensure that those
addresses did stay within the continent.

I cannot support this policy proposal, it basically says to LIRs "do
whatever you want with your v4 space, monetising IPv4 is ok"

I don't think that is good stewardship.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the RPD mailing list