Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy"now Available Online
dogwallah at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 14:17:06 UTC 2011
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> And it may have support from some quarters, but that does not mean I will
> not continue to object to is.
as is your right.
> 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.
shouldn't we be encouraging them to move to v6 for expansion?
> 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
> 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 understand feeling strongly about this policy, I spoke against it in
Cairo and Kigali until I felt it had evolved to the point where I
could accept it.
I think the bigger picture of this part of the proposal needs to be
explained. As I see it, the legacy allocations (mostly to US
entities) were a main complaint for some folks leading up to the UN
WSIS Summit, and those same feelings of inequity have been driving
some in the ITU, and other fora to have some control over part of the
v6 address space.
I see this part of the policy as an anti-colonial bulwark protecting
African resources against plunder by well heeled corporates from the
other regions. I think the sense that African resources should stay
in Africa is what has driven this, even though there may be unintended
If the unintended consequence is that African entities need to shift
to v6 to expand operations, I see that as an acceptable (even
something I think the community wants to encourage) trade-off against
the protection of African Internet resources.
> 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
v6 allocations, just like everybody else in the world, no?
or they can lease space if so allowed by whatever market mechanisms
the other regions adopt.
> 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
> 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:
>>>> 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
"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