Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 ofAFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing
owen at delong.com
Fri May 6 15:28:03 UTC 2011
In the current scenario where all (well, as of a couple of weeks ago, almost all) RIRs
have space to give out, this is not really an issue. There is no reason for a company
which has no ventures in the AfriNIC region to come to AfriNIC for space, they can
get it from (one of) the region(s) where they do operate.
With AfriNIC on track to be one of the last two (and likely the last) RIR(s) to have
an IPv4 free pool, it is worth considering and making some efforts to prevent the
Company A has operations in Europe and the US.
Traditionally they have obtained all their space from RIPE-NCC.
In July,they need more space. They can't get it from RIPE (I expect RIPE to run
out in June), so, they go to ARIN.
In January, they again need more space. Now, ARIN is also out. They look
around the world and discover that only AfriNIC still has a free pool. They
find the cheapest place in the AfriNIC service region to rent an office and
possibly even pay some clerical worker some pittance per day. Now they
apply to AfriNIC for their global needs on the basis of this "presence" in the
AfriNIC region. They qualify for a /14, but, of that /14 they qualified for,
only a /28 is used within Africa. The rest is exported to their US and
I understand the concerns expressed by James and some others, and I'm marginally
sympathetic. However, I feel that preserving the resources for use within the
AfriNIC service region will provide the best service to the whole community and
as such, I support inclusion of the paragraph.
I say this not from the perspective of someone inside the region, but, as someone
very familiar with the insatiable appetites of providers outside of the region and
knowledge of how very large organizations would work to grab addresses if it
is permitted under policy.
The lack of enforcement in this case is less of an issue. I believe that most of these
very large organizations (the ones that have been known to obtain their addresses
in units of /9 or /10 from ARIN, for example) would actually abide by the rule if it
was there. However, without the rule, they will believe that such action is the
intended permitted action favored by the AfriNIC community.
Ask yourself this... From the final /8, how many /10s can you afford to export to
western companies before James' concerns are irrelevant?
On May 6, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Walubengo J wrote:
> 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?
> --- 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
> 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.
>> Arbogast Fabian,
>> > 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
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD