Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online
ondouglas at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 22 15:24:59 UTC 2011
You raise a valid point here and i am compelled to agree. The thing is that this clause was raised in the spirit of preventing the black market situation for IPv4 which i believe you have heard/read about countless times.
In light of your compelled evidence, i think this zero's down to a lesser evil. Now, bringing McTim's argument that Not that many African Multinationals will be moving into EU et al and given that the few that do so have the option of acquiring address space from the regions they belong to, i am for keeping this clause.
Douglas Onyango | +256(0712)981329
Life is the educators practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was wrong.
--- On Tue, 2/22/11, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online
> To: "Andrew Alston" <aa at tenet.ac.za>
> Cc: "AfriNIC List" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 12:03 PM
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM,
> Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za>
> > Hi All,
> >> AfriNIC resources are for the AfriNIC geographical
> region. For each
> >> allocation or assignment made during the
> Exhaustion Phase, no more than
> >> 10% of these resources may be used outside of the
> AfriNIC region, and
> >> any use outside the AfriNIC region shall be solely
> in support of
> >> connectivity back to the AfriNIC region.
> > I need to object to the above clause and recommend
> deletion of this clause,
> > for the following reasons:
> > A.) It's not really enforceable, I have yet to hear
> ANY credible method of
> > identifying members who are violating this. A policy
> that is not
> > enforceable doesn't serve a point, other than as a
> statement of intent.
> Which is sufficient IMO to leave it in (at least for now).
> > B.) This clause creates major problems for African
> companies wishing to
> > globally expand in the post exhaustion era. The
> simple fact is that once an
> > RIR in another region runs out of space, any African
> company wishing to
> > operate in both regions, and needing more space for
> expansion in another
> > region will HAVE to get the space from AfriNIC, that
> or we tell them as the
> > community that we do not support their expansion into
> other markets. It's
> > kind of self defeating. Now, I've heard people say
> that even if this
> > happens, it will amount to less than 10% of their
> allocations, and I don't
> > agree with this sentiment at all. There are plenty
> of cases where an
> > African institution has ONE major branch in Africa,
> and 5 or 6 in different
> > countries and regions around the world. Are we
> really going to stop them
> > expanding by denying them the right to use AfriNIC
> space in their expansion?
> Well, they CAN use v6....but i do see your point.
> > In a world where globalization is becoming key to
> business, I really believe
> > this clause could cause us untold headaches.
> potential headaches, I agree.
> Shall we cross that bridge when we get to it? I don't
> see many
> African companies expanding into the EU or USA right, now,
> but am
> willing to be persuaded that this is a valid (corner)
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where
> it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD