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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Sep 5 14:25:14 SAST 2011


Dear Colleagues

During the  AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting that took place
in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the 8th and 9th June 2011, the
"IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" proposal with reference
AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04 was declared to have reached
consensus. In line with the AfriNIC Policy Development Process
(PDP),  we, the PDPWG Co-chairs, are now issuing a
Last Call for comments on the proposal as follows:

Start of Last Call: 5 September 2011
End of Last Call:  20 September 2011

The community is hereby called upon to review the policy proposal and its
associated documents and make comments.  As a brief guide, in recent
debate, comments and issues were raised on the following areas of the
policy which have now been modified:

-       Section 2: Incentive Text Changed

-       Section 3.5.1: Standardize the Minimum Allocation/Assignment
to cater for route aggregation etc

-       Section 3.5: Change the names of the two sub-phases within
the Exhaustion Phase to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and "Exhaustion Phase 2".

-       Exhaustion Phase 2:  During this phase a minimum
Allocation/Assignment size will be /24, and the maximum will  be /22
per allocation/assignment.

-       Section 3.8.1: The 10% per Allocation/Assignment was dropped in
favour of a support for backward connectivity without explicit mention of
percentages

-       AfriNIC resources are for AfriNIC service region and any use
outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity
back to the AfriNIC region

For your reference, the deliberations on this proposal at the meeting
are re-produced from the minutes at the end of the message:

At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on
whether consensus has been reached by taking into consideration
the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this
Last Call period.

Regards.

The Co-Chairs
AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group (PDPWG)



[References]


(i) The full text of the policy proposal that got consensus in Dar es Salaam
<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05.htm<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm>
>

(ii) Minutes of the AfriNIC-14 policy discussions

<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afrinic14_f2f_meeting_minutes.pdf>

(iii) Staff Comments and Implementation Analyses of the proposal by AfriNIC
Ltd
  <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001209.html>

(iv) The AfriNIC Policy Development Process
 <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm>

(v) Post Meeting Policy Report by interim PDWG co-chairs
 <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html >


Highlights of Discussions during Face to Face meeting in Dar es Salaam

On the contentious issue of a limit on how much space could be used outside
the region:

** Andrew Alston stated that he will support the proposal without the
10% clause.

**Nii Quaynor proposed a 1% limit combined with inclusion into the RSA of
what kinds of out of region uses were realistic. Mark Elkins
responded that  1% of a /22 (the typical allocation during exhaustion
phase 2) will be inadequate for most purposes. He expressed support for the
proposal if the 10% was exclusively to allow connectivity back to the
continent.

**Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying percentage was
to change the clause to state that more than half of all the space of the
requesting entity (including legacy space) has to be used within the AfriNIC
service region.

**Mark Tinka  and Sunday Folayan opposed the proposal on the grounds that it
tries to tell an operator how to run their networks.

**Consensus at the meeting was that the most contentious piece of
the proposal was paragraph 3.8 and several proposals to replace it
were given at the meeting. In the end the adopted replacement for
that paragraph was as follows:

(a) When applying for more space, the applicant must have used 90% of all
space currently held by them. This 90% excludes legacy space Should this
space include legacy space? Three people from the audience said that legacy
space.

(b) For second part of 3.8 (regarding the 10% limit on out-of-region
use), Alan presented the options as follows:

(Option 1) Keep existing text
(Option 2) No more than 1%
(Option 3) No more than 50% outside of Africa (including legacy space)
(Option 4) No number, just a statement stating that "AfriNIC resources are
for the AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside should be solely in
support for connectivity back to the region."
(Option 5): Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used
solely within the AfriNIC region or to support connectivity back to the
region.

Consensus was on option 4  but with "geographic region" changed
into "service region"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110905/2f514281/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the rpd mailing list