Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri May 6 16:31:14 UTC 2011 

On May 6, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:

> Sorry to say it, but you sound like we are not also aware of the appetites of foreign companies, and believe me, we are acutely aware.  We live on a continent that has been pillaged for resources for years, the difference here from my perspective is the bizarre notion that is policy will actually make a difference when weighed against the needs of companies who have billions at stake if they don't get the space.
> 
I think you are aware, but, removal of this clause would constitute consent.

Even if you don't believe that the clause will make a difference, why consent to their
action?

> The pillaging will happen, people act in their own interests and you have far more faith in the international community than I do if you believe otherwise.  Hence my proposal to allow foreign membership at inflated cost to those who need space when their regions have run out of space.
> 
Your proposal is not what is currently being discussed. Make that case in that debate.
At the moment, the question is the consensus call on this sentence in this proposal.
Removing it is an invitation to those companies to engage in additional plunder.
At the very least, I think it is worth saying "We do not consent", even if it cannot actually
prevent the plundering.

I have very little faith in the international community. What I do have faith in is the
idea that the largest of the large companies will not see enough value in taking
/12 and larger chunks out of AfriNICs last /8 to justify their PR risk if this policy is
in place.

For them, the addresses, while valuable, will not be enough to justify the risks.
It will be enough to drive them to their more localized transfer markets as a likely
lower risk solution.

> Instead, we are promoting a clause that will be ignored, while the rest of the world pillages Africa with zero benefit to Afrinic or it's community.  Wow this sounds familiar, it's happened with all our other resources, why will it be different this time? So in the name of idealism we damage the interests of African companies in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable.  I for one, as an African say hell no.  If our space is to be taken anyway, let's gain from it, and instead of being foolish and believing that the rest of the world is suddenly going to change their behavior because of some clause, let's legitimize it and get at least SOME gain from it.
> 
If your policy gains consensus, sure. However, removing this clause from this
policy without that happening simply means that the AfriNIC community has
consented to this pillaging without recourse.

> Aside from the fact that I believe that attempting to artificially lengthen the life of ipv4 in Africa will make us a dumping ground for old hardware and actually slow the propagation of ipv6, once again leaving Africa behind the curve and damaging the African interests.  There is already evidence of the old hardware dumping btw....
> 
I don't see the old hardware dumping coming to an end merely as a result of
lack of available IPv4 addresses in the region. Indeed, I see the lack of IPv4
addresses in the region merely increasing the pain of this fact.

Owen

> Andrew
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 06 May 2011, at 17:31, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> possibility below:
>> 
>> 		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
>> 		European operations.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On May 6, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Walubengo J 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20110506/5f8922d3/attachment.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list