[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy"now Available Online

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 23, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 2011/02/23 8:54 PM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How is this measured? What counts as 'outside'?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> AfriNIC has a clearly defined geographical service region. If an address is
>>>>> assigned to a device physically outside of that defined region, then, the
>>>>> address is being used outside of the region. This does not seem like
>>>>> rocket science to me.
>>>> 
>>>> What happens to african ISPs having customers outside the service
>>>> region, if those customers can consume more than 10% of the ISP
>>>> allocation?
>>> 
>>> They probably should seek addresses for those customers from an
>>> out-of-region RIR? This is permitted by all of the RIRs, I believe.
>> 
>> Only when the ISP has legal presence in that RIR region of service.
>> Dont all RIRs restrict resource provision to their service region?
>> 
> 
> Errr, sorry, but I need to point out something at this point.  This is the
> soft landing policy, by the time this policy kicks in, they will be UNABLE
> to seek resources out of region.  Currently AfriNIC's IP burn rate is such
> that by the time that this policy kicks in, everyone else will have depleted
> and only be offering v6.
> 
> Therefore, anyone wanting space for global expansion will HAVE to get it
> from AfriNIC and announce it off continent.  That or be told that they can't
> have any and can't expand.
> 
> Further more, irrespective of how big said company was before and how much
> space they had pre this policy kicking in, under current wording of said
> policy, they cannot use more than 10% of *THAT* allocation off continent.
> Are we now saying that said company must renumber loads of things to move
> old allocations that weren't allocated under this policy off continent so
> that they can use the new space within the geographic region?  Because under
> this policy wording, that would be allowed as well, though it does kind of
> defeat the point of the policy.
> 
> I have HUGE issues with us saying that when a genuine African company has IP
> space from AfriNIC they should be restricted as to where they use it, when
> they cannot get space elsewhere.  We live in a global world, business is
> global, communications are global, are we as Africans going to continue to
> try and hide in our corner of the world while the rest of the world moves
> on, and deny ourselves the ability to grow into the global economy?  Because
> THAT I believe is the net effect of this.
> 
> Andrew

If you can come up with a good definition for policy of a genuine African
company (and not a shell company with an office somewhere in
Africa for the purpose of exporting addresses) that would prevent
the exploitation of resources out of region while complying with the
letter of the policy (if not the intent), that I would welcome that change.

Otherwise, I think that the likelihood of this being an issue in IPv4
compared to the much greater harm that comes without this
protection makes the 10% provision necessary.

Owen