Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy"now Available Online
aa at tenet.ac.za
Thu Feb 24 14:24:04 UTC 2011
I 100% agree with you that AfriNIC should not be in a situation where it
attempts to solve problems out of its scope. In the same token, AfriNIC
should not put itself in a position where it CREATES a problem for African
I do not believe that it is in scope of ANY RIR to dictate HOW resources
should be used. It is in their scope to do responsible allocation of space
to requesting entities and that space is to be used as the company sees fit.
Are we going to start saying that the RIR should tell people that they can
use space for X but not for Y? If not, whats the difference in telling
companies that they can use it in place X and not place Z? Its a very fine
line when you start trying to turn the RIR into a police force for the
resources it allocates
On 2011/02/24 4:13 PM, "Nii Quaynor" <nquaynor at gmail.com> wrote:
> AfriNIC should not be put in a situation where it attempts to solve problems
> out of its scope. An African company that wants to grow it should do the right
> things including using v6 and when needs v4 get it from the region they are
> operating in
> While we promote expansion of Internet businesses we should stay out of the
> business plans of companies including their expansion out of the Africa
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 13:41, 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.
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD