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

[Andrew Alston]

On 2011/02/24 4:17 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> 

Of course we should, but as pointed out by Geoff Huston today (and while I
use this with a pinch of salt because I'm not sure I agree with what he
said), its a long way before everyone is ready for V6.

V6 is critical, I stood up at AfriNIC in Johannesburg at the last meeting
and stated very plainly that I believe that we are in a crisis situation due
to lack of V6 expansion.  That in no way means that I support restricting
the use of what V4 resources we have while people migrate.

Even if companies only need small allocations to do a translation between
internal V6 and external V4, they still need allocations they can use off
shore, and in the event that an African company has all the v4 it needs on
continent, and hits a position where it wants to expand after this proposal
kicks in, then the sole use for the new allocation will be off shore, even
if its just a /24 for translation.  This policy would prevent that and in
that situation, where are they going to get space?

On the IPv4 black market?  From reclaimed address space IF there is any?
Both things that have been discussed on this list and the overwhelming
consensus if my reading is correct is that we are attempting to PREVENT such
things from occurring, yet this policy will ENCOURAGE them.

>> 
>> 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 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
> consequences.
> 
> 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.
> 
Are we encouraging the expansion to v6 by extending the life time of African
V4 resources into infinitum?  We currently have a burn rate that will leave
us with IPv4 space for years after the rest of the world has run out.  Does
this encourage going V6?  I don't believe so, I believe it continues the
illusion that people don't have to do anything about V6.  If anything, we
should be encouraging people to use the v4 and INCREASE the burn rate (See
my policy proposal on allowing out of region membership)


Andrew