[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.

Thu Feb 10 09:12:51 UTC 2011

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:25 +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 20:04 +0200, Andrew Alston wrote:
> > > Hi Jackson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2011/02/09 7:41 PM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I have concerns about this policy, since as has been stated in various other
> > > >> discussion forums, there are several reasons to have so called "live"
> > > >> (non-rfc1918) space that is not announced in the routing tables but is
> > > >> actively in use.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. IXPs are one exception. I am willing to accommodate other
> > > > similar cases in the proposal.
> > > >
> > > I can think of a LOT of exceptions.  Take for example the following (and I
> > > admit this is a very specific example, but it highlights the issue)
> > >
> > > An ISP is running an IRC server, the server has two interfaces, one globally
> > > routable for uplinking to the IRC network in question.  One that is ONLY
> > > announced to national transits that is the "client" interface and that is
> > > actually visible.  This is done to avoid any form of denial of service
> > > attack against a commonly attacked service.  The IP space assigned to that
> > > "client" segment is DELIBERATELY not announced globally and never will be.
> >
> > I actually do this with some address space for a particular IRC Network.
> > Before I did this - my ISP was badly hit by a DDOS.
> >
> > > To accommodate this type of behavior on a case by case basis is going to be
> > > very difficult, and to attempt to do this narrowly to specific applications
> > > would amount to dictating what an ISP can do with their space with regards
> > > to their routing.  The  policy would need to be modified to state that
> > > limited announcement within a geographic area is permissible irrespective of
> > > the reason for it, as it is not up to the RIR to dictate those cases where
> > > it is or is not allowed to their client base.
> > >
> > > >> Also, at which point are you evaluating the routing tables?  I can point to
> > > >> several instances where space is "partially" announced (within a geographic
> > > >> area, yet not propagated globally).  The space is completely valid and being
> > > >> utilized, but factors preclude its global announcement.
> > > >
> > > > That is why time from issue to announcement has been defined.
> > > >
> > > The timing is not at issue there, there are many cases where this is a
> > > permanent situation.
> > >
> > > >> This proposal also makes no provision for the handling of so called legacy
> > > >> address segments, which would have to be dealt with as a separate issue.
> > > >
> > > > It handles legacy IPv4.
> > > > 2.1 - 2.4 clauses cover for these scenario.
> > > > Those are in fact the key targets for the proposal.
> > >
> > > I have a major problem with this.  Legacy allocations were issued before the
> > > RIR's were ever created, and were not bound by the policies that govern the
> > > current RIR's.  As such, while the RIR's do control such services as the
> > > whois, I believe it would be extremely problematic to attempt to force
> > > impose policies on the holders such space.  This has been the subject of
> > > much discussion recently on the nanog lists as well.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Jack
> >
> > Jack - is this policy being sent to all RIR's or just AfriNIC.
> 
> Just AfriNIC.
> 
> > Where are you geographically based?
> 
> In Africa. Why should it matter?
> 
> > Are you proposing this policy on behalf of someone else or a particular
> > entity or is this your own idea?
> 
> It is not tied to any entity. Reclaiming unused addresses is for the
> good of all.

OK - I'm being quite rude.

Your previous Policy simply made the hairs on the back of my neck stand
up in alarm.

Anyway - your name would suggest you are from Kenya.

The people of Africa have been exploited by others around the world.
This community is trying its best to see this does not happen with IPv4
addresses.

I personally have been approached by an Indian company wishing to
purchase a fair sized block of IPv4 addresses only yesterday.
I could help them and end up making some money for myself.
But I don't believe that this would be a good thing to do.

We do have a policy on the last /8 that states no more than 10% of any
allocation/assignment can be used out of Africa - and then only to
facilitate internet connectivity to Africa. I believe its up before the
Board for ratification real soon now.

Anyway - I've no intention of scaring you away - I just don't want to
see the internet industry in Africa hurt, or future ISP's unable to
operate through having no access to (by then - old) IPv4 resources.
At the end of the day - AfriNIC may have a surplus of IPv4 addresses -
we might not need them all ourselves - but I don't have a crystal ball.

(The IANA) IPv4 (pool) is dead - long live IPv6!

> 
> Jack

-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110210/00e90ed5/attachment.bin>