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
Fri Feb 25 17:23:34 UTC 2011

On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:04 AM, James Blessing wrote:

> On 25/02/2011 02:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I don't know about you, but, when I see cars in front of me about to collide, I do not
>> tend to step on the gas to see if I can join the accident.
> Actually there are times when pressing the accelerator is the best way of avoiding an accident (as many f1 driver will tell you). This is the reason the idea of 'selling' address out of the last /8 is attractive (not saying its what should happen, just that its attractive) for 2 reasons:
Of course, but, generally, that's stepping on the gas to get out of the way of the accident. David was
suggesting that we should accelerate the boat to join the others in going over the cliff at the same
time. I was suggesting that it is better to look for alternatives, perhaps a more gentle set of rapids.

> 1. Increase the income into AfriNIC, this could be used to fund educational projects and consultancy to those networks wanting to transition but without the experience or skills.
You're talking about increasing the income by a very small amount in the proposal you submitted.
I don't think the income you would produce would provide for more than one or two educational

> 2. Bring the depletion date forward in the region so that it focuses it in the mind of networks and encourages to move now rather than waiting.
This might be a benefit if you truly believe that shoving people over a cliff is the only way they will
notice that they're about to fall.

> 3. Helps other regions who are trying to transition but are growing faster than they can migrate (Apnic)
It  really doesn't. It's such a drop in the bucket compared to the consumption rate in any one of those
regions, let alone their combined consumption rate that it provides almost no relief whatsoever.

> 4. Stops Africa becoming a dumping ground for all the hardware that isn't v6 capable. Potentially increasing the time before depletion as networks continue to use the 'cheap' discards from the other regions (including the address space that is handed back once v6 is the defacto choice)
That's an interesting theory. I would have expected people in Africa to realize that buying gear that
doesn't support IPv6 isn't in their best interest already.

> 5. Demonstrates the Africa is forward looking, maybe the policy needs to actually put a hard stop on the allocation of IPv4 addresses (say 1st Jan 2013) pushing networks to deploy IPv6 at a greater rate than they are today
Again, that's an interesting approach, but, it has nothing to do with the policy you've proposed or with your
proposed changes to the soft landing policy.

> This debate seems to be focusing on whether other networks regions are going to 'steal' v4 space from AfriNIC and what can be done to stop them. Whilst in other regions the focus has moved to how do we transition at a faster pace.
This particular debate is about a clause designed to prevent the theft of resources from the AfriNIC region after
the other regions run out first. I think there is lots of talk in the region about how to transition faster. I don't think
this debate is really "the focus" of the AfriNIC region. Indeed, most of the region reached consensus on this
matter months ago and you and David Conrad seem to be the only people left arguing the other side.

> We (Limelight Networks) have been adding v6 capabilities to our services for years, our JNB pop had v6 added to it about 30 minutes after the final v4 addressing plan had been completed (only because I wanted a cup of coffee) but its only *now* that people are beginning to ask for v6 services to be turned on.
I'm not sure I see a correlation between this and any meaningful part of the policy debate.

> Its true AfriNIC needs to have a expiry policy, but for one I think it should actually be more about a setting a (close) hard expiry date and getting whatever value is possible out of a scarce resource rather than trying to arrange he deck chairs to make sure they don't get wet until th last second.
ROFL... I would support policy to do that. I don't think that transferring the space out of region (throwing the deck
chairs at the other boats to follow your analogy) is the best way to gain value.

Remember, I am the one who said:

IPv4 has a TITANIC address shortage.
IPv6 is the rescue ship.
IPv6RD is a life boat.
NAT is a seat cushion used for flotation.
NAT444 is a deck chair.
Deck chairs don't float.


More information about the RPD mailing list