Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Feb 24 16:19:48 UTC 2011

On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Andrew Alston 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.
That is because you have absolutely misunderstood what I said.

> Because that is EXACTLY what was implied by what Owen said.
No, it is absolutely not at all what I was implying or stating.

I was stating that they were unlikely to do it with IPv4.

> 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 think your examples upon investigation will likely topple like the examples
you provided. All of the off-shore IPv4 addresses I could find for any of the African
companies you listed did not come from AfriNIC.

> 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?

That's not what this clause does. Here's how I think it goes for African
companies with this clause:

1.	They will soon be unable to get additional IPv4 space to use in
	significant proportion off-continent.

2.	They will be able to continue to expand IPv4 on-continent for
	a year or two more.

Here's how it goes without this clause:

1.	They will soon be unable to get additional IPv4 at all.

2.	Foreign companies will set up African shells or whatever else
	is needed in order to export addresses from Africa for their
	purposes, removing the address resources from the reach of
	African companies regardless of where they wish to deploy them.

I don't see how African companies IPv4 expansion to other continents
is facilitated in either case. Can you please explain how you think
it would be?

> 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?
Without this clause, when the other RIRs can't offer you space, AfriNIC won't
be able to, either.

> I challenge EVERY African to really think this through, and ask yourself, do
> you want these limitations?  Personally, I know I don't
I challenge you to really think this through and consider what ACTUALLY
happens to African companies without this clause.


> Andrew
> On 2011/02/24 3:29 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at> 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.

More information about the RPD mailing list