[AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 ofAFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Walu,

I have a bit of an issue with terming use of space out of the region as abuse.  There are several instances where this is done that is defiantly not abuse.  I know of one case where a company who has a majority long term plan needed space for their starting point which is in London, and because the majority of the space was meant for Africa the long run, the decision was to get Afrinic space.  However until the African network is build the majority of the space is used in London.

This is not abuse, it's sanity, unless you propose that the company get more space than it's long term needs and gets an allocation from both regions.

At the same time, I think figuring out where space is used could be problematic.  I also know of several large south African companies who have large European and American, and even Asian deployments, all space is African, because thats the base of operations and that's where the majority of demand for those companies is, but I'm not at all convinced this is limited to 10%

Thanks

Andrew

Sent from my iPad

On 06 May 2011, at 12:22, "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> all,
> 
> jst wondering, does the current IPv4 allocation policy have this suddenly contentious 10% rule? Either way, to what extend have the current LIR abused/not abused the Afrinic IP resources outside the AfriNIC region? Do we have statistics on this or it is impossible to measure this given the "agnostic" nature of IP cited below?
> 
> walu.
> 
> --- On Fri, 5/6/11, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> 
> From: Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 ofAFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing
> To: "Arbogast Fabian" <afabbie at hotmail.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Date: Friday, May 6, 2011, 12:30 PM
> 
> Hi Arbogast,
> 
> This question I believe comes to the heart of the question, and having been probably the most vocal opponent of this clause I have to admit my bias in what follows.
> 
> I argue that Internet addresses are geographically agnostic, you get some space, you route it to where you need it, and you use it.  If you happen to need space for expansion of your network outside of the Afrinic region the space will have to come from somewhere.  Since this policy is likely to come into effect after the complete depletion of space by the other rir's, you could not get the space from them.
> 
> This means that should you get allocated a /22 under this policy, you could number a maximum of 102 devices internationally.  Add sub netting loss to that etc, and the number could fall below 70.  This is extremely restrictive.
> 
> I know of a good few institutions that have African space that is announced outside of the region for perfectly legitimate reasons.
> 
> In addition to this, the policy does not define what is meant by usage, and further to this, restricts such (as yet undefined) usage for enabling connectivity back to the region.  I would argue that this prohibits use of the space even for the purpose of international disaster recovery sites, though again, the document is silent on what enabling such connectivity means.
> 
> I also argue that the clause is unenforceable as it is nigh impossible to detect where space is actually "used".  Then again due to lack of definition of used, I could argue that if I announce the space from an african router but have the addresses on an international server, the space is still originated from Africa and therefore "used"
> 
> Hope this helps clarify
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 06 May 2011, at 10:26, "Arbogast Fabian" <afabbie at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> dear members,
>>  
>> i need some light before supporting or opposing the idea.
>>  
>> in the first place do we think and is it the practice for these resources meant and allocated to AfriNIC to be routed and land outside the AfriNIC region (meaning going to end users who are sitting outside africa region) ?
>>  
>> pls. advice.
>>  
>> rgds,
>>  
>> 
>> Arbogast Fabian,
>> cell:+255-78-447-8387
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> > Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 08:46:55 +0300
>> > From: geier at geier.ne.tz
>> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > I like the sentence to stay.
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > Frank
>> > 
>> > On 5/5/2011 12:56 PM, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
>> > > This is a Consensus call on the following sentence in Section 3.8 of
>> > > AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 (IPv4 Soft Landing proposal):
>> > > 
>> > > "For each allocation or assignment made during the Exhaustion Phase,
>> > > no more than 10% of these resources may be used outside of the
>> > > AfriNIC region, and any use outside the AfriNIC region shall be
>> > > solely in support of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region."
>> > > 
>> > > The consensus call ends on 20 May, 2011. Comments should be sent to the
>> > > Resource Policy Development mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net). Please
>> > > indicate whether you support including that sentence in the proposal.
>> > > 
>> > > Regards,
>> > > S. Moonesamy
>> > > Interim co-chair, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
>> > > 
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > rpd mailing list
>> > > rpd at afrinic.net
>> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rpd mailing list
>> > rpd at afrinic.net
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110506/64ff22f1/attachment.html>