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

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 24, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:

> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Actually, I don't agree.  If you give people the legitimate means to get the
> space, they have the option of doing the legitimate thing and updating the
> database.  If you force them into the black market pillaging of IP space
> outside of the policy (which you yourself have acknowledged may happen,
> since you acknowledge the policy is unenforceable) they will not have the
> option to update the database at all even if they wanted to.
> 
You clearly missed my more subtle point that you were conflating the different issues of pillaging and hijacking which are different problems with different resolutions.

>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> If a company grabs space for external use without being permitted to do so
> through policy, and we cannot track this and enforce the policy, they cannot
> update the records legitimately.
> 
If they do this, it is hijacking and that would apply. However, that applies to hijacking now.

If they come to AfriNIC and obtain the space legitimately, but then use it out of region contrary to policy, that would allow database updates, but they would be able to update 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.
>> 
> 
> Extending the life of a dying resource and telling the African people that
> its ok to wait a little longer before doing anything is far from the best
> interests of the community.  We aren't dealing with technical people who
> have to make the decisions, we're dealing with management types who have to
> spend money.  For so many years we've been sold the line that "There is no
> business case" for IPv6.  This was a delusional, the business case for IPv6
> was in revenue retention not in revenue creation.  Give the management the
> option to wait a little longer, to avoid spending what needs to be spent for
> just a few more months, they will take it.  That I do believe, and I've seen
> it time and time and time again.
> 
I've never said it is OK to wait. Claiming that I am saying any such thing indicates you are unaware of my history or the facts of the situation.

As to the rest... I refer you to my site http://businessv6.he.net

>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I have much faith in the African people and the people of this region, if I
> didn't, I wouldn't live here and try every day of my life to fight for
> better net access for the people of this continent, as do so many other
> people for whom I have so much respect.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> I don't propose a handout, see my other policy proposal.
> 
I think your other proposal is a handout. It's a handout with a small amount of additional revenue for AfriNIC, but, still a handout.

> Anyway, this debate has raged all day now, and I believe that I have said
> all can say in defense of my beliefs.  Hence, I'm going to close this off
> until another day, and I hope that if you feel as strongly as I do about
> these issues, you will come and debate them in Dar Es Salaam with me.  I
> look forward to the opportunity to debate such issues face to face.
> 
> Andrew 

I very much wish I could be there. Unfortunately, absent a change in circumstances it appears I will not be able to come.

Owen