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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>>> Sometimes legalizing something is for the good of the community since it
>>> controls it and at least the records up to date and makes the legalized
>>> concern more trackable and manageable.
>>> 
>> Please explain to me how giving permission for this pillaging would control
>> it and be good for the community?
>> 
> 
> Easy, it will stop the illegitimate hijacking of space, which will result in
> the whois databases being at least vaguely up to date and accurate.  It will
> result in people being able to actually track down users of the space for
> potential abuse reports.  It will allow ISPs who wish to peer to know they
> are peering with someone using space they have been properly assigned.  The
> benefits are multi-fold.
> 
It will not change hijacking at all. It will stop the illegitimate pillaging of
African resources by legitimizing it. I still contend this is not the desired
outcome, nor is it beneficial to the community.

Anyone that would use the space without a database update would
do so regardless of the policy and will not update the database merely
because we have legitimized pillaging.

This would only change the number of companies likely to pillage
(removing the clause will increase the number) and the size of
the organizations likely to engage in pillaging (with permission,
much larger organizations will see less risk in doing so). In both
cases, the pillaging would be recorded in the database.

> It will also bring the depletion dates of all the RIR's closer together,
> which I believe is in the best interests of everyone, since the
> normalization of depletion of the address space means people are in the same
> boat and heading towards the same goal, the implementation of V6.  The

Respectfully, I absolutely disagree with this position. Accelerating AfriNIC's
depletion to match the other registries is NOT in the best interests of the
AfriNIC community.

We are all in the same boat headed for the goal of IPv6 deployment either
way. The difference is that depleting AfriNIC prematurely by exporting
resources to other regions makes the transition that much harder in the
AfriNIC service region. The other regions have relatively mature
IPv4 deployments compared to AfriNIC (with the possible exception
of LACNIC and some isolated parts of APNIC).

> extension of the space in one region leaves that region at a disadvantage in
> the long term as it slows their transition to what would actually work in
> the long term.  Similar in some ways to the way I would oppose handouts to
> the African continent, which impoverishes the continent in the long term,
> where as I would support skills transfer and development on the continent.

Again, I disagree. I think that Africans are smart enough to realize the need
to transition to IPv6 and use their IPv4 resources wisely to facilitate that
transition. I guess I have more faith in the people of the AfriNIC region
than you do.

This is not a handout to AfriNIC. This is an attempt to prevent AfriNIC from
giving a handout which it can ill afford to the other regions.

Owen