Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
rajabu kitindi
rkitindi at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 20:22:06 UTC 2011
Hi All,
Although in section 3.8 policy mention amount of IPv4 utilization to be
reached before LRI or end user send request for a additional IPv4 addresses.
I still think, it is necessary for Policy to explicitly mention that "A
proof of IPv4 utilization from LIR or end used must be submitted along with
request for additional IPv4" in section 3.6, this will make sure that LRIs
and End users don't think there is bureaucracy at Afrinic when asked for
such evidences, I once did last time I was applying for more IPv4s.
I also think at this stage, Policy should explicitly mention, how long will
it take for LRIs and End user to get additional IPv4 from the day they
submit all utilization evidences. This will assist LRIs and end users to
plan and use efficiently the remaining 10%.
For the moment, time to get IPv4 is unpredictable, my last experience shows
that, it took me around 2 or 2.5 months to get confirmation from Afrinic
that my request has been received and ask me for utilization evidence,
although I sent so many reminders. And also it took me around 3 to 4 weeks
to get additional IPv4 from the date I submitted utilization trends. I think
at these critical times, SLA issues should be addressed by Policy, will save
a lot of issues with regards to IPv4 management, because you know exactly
how long will it take from the day you send request to the day you get
additional IPv4
Also, I think this Policy generally focuses in reservation of IPv4 for
longer usage which may lead for LRIs and End user to keep using IPv4
reservation techniques such as NAT etc. In my opinion at this stage, Policy
should explicitly promote and emphasize deployment and usage of IPv6
addresses by for example creating favourable conditions for LRIs and end
users who ask for IPv6, this may include, instant responses to IPv6 requests
as compare to IPv4 request, time to get IPv6 should be considerably shorter
as compared to the time to get IPv4, if possible, free workshops which
address IPv6 deployment and transition strategies etc. In short Policy
should promote IPv6 deployment across the region, Although IPv4 utilization
in Africa is low, it doesn't mean that we should be the last in deploying
IPv6.
I submit
Regards,
Rajabu Kitindi
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:01 AM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Send rpd mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Owen DeLong)
> 2. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing
> Policy(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (vincent at ngundi.me.ke)
> 3. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Frank Habicht)
> 4. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Mam Dawda Gai)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:17:26 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Message-ID: <89588662-986A-4DE6-B6B1-1D91380B8465 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I still support the policy.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:25 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> > 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>
> >
> > (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"
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20110905/8dc32cb3/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:22:17 +0000
> From: vincent at ngundi.me.ke
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing
> Policy(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> To: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Message-ID:
>
> <2109579828-1315236494-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1167879418- at b26.c7.bise7.blackberry
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> I support the policy proposal with the modifications.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vincent
> Sent from my BlackBerryŽ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Sender: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:25:14
> To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List<rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:13:37 +0300
> From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Message-ID: <4E6719A1.9020106 at geier.ne.tz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I support it.
> Frank
>
> On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, McTim wrote:
> > 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"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:59:18 +0000
> From: Mam Dawda Gai <mdgai at gamtel.gm>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Message-ID: <20110907075918.3453187u6340wf34 at www.gamtel.gm>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
> i support it with the amendments.
>
> > 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"
> >
>
>
>
> Mam Dawda Gai
> Director Multimedia Services
> Gambia Telecommunications Company Ltd (Gamtel)
> Tel: 220 4375936
> Mob: 220 9970444
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
>
> End of rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
> **********************************
>
--
MOTD: When we stop to think, we often miss our opportunity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110911/217c2b54/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list