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

[Andrew Alston]

And it may have support from some quarters, but that does not mean I will
not continue to object to is.

I HONESTLY believe that this will have the potential effect of limiting
African company growth, and I find it absolutely shocking that someone would
have the audacity on this list to imply that African companies will not look
for and achieve expansion beyond Africa.

Because that is EXACTLY what was implied by what Owen said.

I am QUITE happy to supply example after example where this policy would
break even CURRENT allocations never mind future allocations, and should
this policy come up again in Dar Es Salaam, I will be there stating the same
things.  

I've been pretty quiet on the list unless I feel that something really needs
to be said, but at this point, when IP space is running out, and based on
what I am seeing flying around, I do feel I need to take a stand, and this
is one of those issues I feel very strongly about.

I would ask that the Africans on this list, in the companies out there,
state on this list, do YOU want to be restricted from Global expansion?
When the other RIRs cant offer you space and you want to expand, and the
only space you can get in the V4 world is from AfriNIC, are you going to
happy when you're told you can't use the space for your expansion?  Are you
prepared to be forced to renumber your networks into your new allocations so
you can use your old allocations off continent?  Do you believe that there
is no scope for you as an African company to expand beyond this continent
and join the global market?

I challenge EVERY African to really think this through, and ask yourself, do
you want these limitations?  Personally, I know I don't

Andrew



On 2011/02/24 3:29 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> <SNIP>
>> 
>>>> 
>>> As has been pointed out by others, the probability of African ISPs
>>> making significant off-shore expansions in IPv4 is somewhere between
>>> slim and none, so I tend to doubt that this is anything more than a
>>> straw man argument.
>> 
>> Errrr the possibility is slim to none?  Ok, so hold on, lets look at a few
>> things for a second.  MTN is currently in the top 10 largest cellular
>> networks in the world, and one of the largest by market cap, they didn't do
>> this by not expanding, they are an ISP.
>> 
>> Vodacom is a large company, with the potential for market expansion.
>> 
>> Anglo Gold and Debeers Mining both are African companies with HUGE
>> international holdings, what happens when they need more space?
> 
> They need to shift to IPv6.
> 
> 
> They aren't
>> an ISP so they don't count or something?  So P.I space can then be
>> specifically excluded from this clause?  Or not?
> 
> 
> no, addresses are addresses.
> 
> We have been talking about this one for 2 years, and we finally got
> consensus on it.  I would say that the part that you are objecting to
> has historically had the most support of any of the bits of this
> policy.