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

[AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Fri Jan 11 19:23:51 UTC 2013

Hi Seun,


Microsoft and others I believe are buying blocks of v4 because the reality
is, the money they are spending is chump change to them to keep things
running as long as possible, however, it's a very short term strategy.
Speaking to networking people in Europe on a regular basis, I see people
already having major issues addressing things because of v4, so the time for
v6 only is coming.


As you say "once we kick off", that's the wrong strategy, we should have
kicked off ages ago.  Fact, v6 works, I believe I proved that point very
well in the remote presentation I gave to the last AfriNIC meeting, where we
have a university doing 60% of its internet traffic on v6.  It's time to
move, and day in and day out I hear people tell me it can wait, it's not
necessary, etc etc.  It's the same old story we've been hearing for more
than 10 years now, and there is *no* motivation at the moment for African
providers to move to v6 unless they are thinking long term.  Thinking long
term though, doesn't seem to be in the nature of this industry for some
bizarre reason.  ISP's want to make sure what they have *NOW* works, so you
have to give them incentive to actually think about their own futures, and
we haven't got that right yet.


Why are our v6 deployment rates so chronically low on the African continent?
Because the reality that v4's time is up hasn't sunk in, and if we keep
dragging on like this, by the time it has sunk in, the world will have moved
past us and once again, we'll be playing catch up.


I for one am SICK and TIRED of Africa always trying to play catch up to the
rest of the world, how about for once we actually run the race together, or
even better, get a little bit ahead of the pack?  Trying to drag the v4
allocations out forever more will leave us in that catch up situation
*again*, and no thanks, I can't believe that's the right strategy.





From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:30 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List; Ernest - (AfriNIC); McTim
Subject: RE: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)


Hey Andrew,

I beg to disagree with you on this, I don't think having v4 is the major
stumbling block to v6 development; we cannot say because we want to go naked
then we sell our cloths(as we have then given the buyer right to abuse us
even as he strips us naked), instead we take it off ourself and at our own
Development process  rate in Africa is not a 1+1=2 scenario, but  can be as
much as =11 (broadband penetration rate is a good sample source). So don't
worry about tagging along with other continents, we will get close to them
once we kick off! Especially once some critical application that interest
Africans start running on v6 (and not on v4 at all)
As per V4 being useless at a later time, well I had thought about that too.
Then I read events where big organization such as Microsoft are buying large
v4s...I wonder why such an investment from business oriented form if v4 will
indeed become useless soon :)


Sent from Google Nexus
Skype: seun.ojedeji

On Jan 11, 2013 6:07 PM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at> wrote:

Hi All,


It's me about to be controversial again.


I proposed something actually far more liberal in Tanzania, and yes, it was
voted down and withdrawn.  But I for one support this policy, again, under
the guise that I believe it assists NO ONE if one region is sitting with v4
space long after the other regions have run out.  If we all go over the
proverbial cliff together, we all develop at the same rate and there is some
incentive to actually do something about IPv6.  Day in and day out I still
get told by people that they don't need to worry about v6, after all,
AfriNIC has plenty of IPv4 available still..


Holding onto the v4 space and limiting the ability  to get rid of it is
short sighted and long term will have negative effects on this continent.
Let's stop thinking about the NOW and think about where we need to be
heading and how we are going to get there, and sadly, the one thing I've
found in this industry, you need some pretty big incentives to get things
moving (scarcity, financial impact or public embarrassment generally do the
trick) .  I would say RUNNING OUT is probably the biggest incentive of them
all though.


So +1 for this policy, I support it





From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of
Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:19 PM
To: McTim
Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List; Ernest - (AfriNIC)
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)


+1 something similar to this proposal was presented sometime ago(i think it
was at Afrinic 14 in Tanzania). Ofcourse i opposed it then, and even now i
strongly oppose! I don't see any economic benefit that will come out of
this, i can only relate such an act to indirect colonialism.

Our heritage is a thing of pride lets not sell it to a foreigner!


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, McTim <dogwallah at> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I am opposed to this proposal.

Given that Africa has historically fewer numbering resources than
other regions,
and this proposal will allow transfer from the region to other
regions, it seems to me to be
a way for people to make money from IP address transfers in opposition
to the sense of the
community as gauged a few meetings ago.

In addition, at, I found:

"Chad Abizeid
Please contact me at chad at / 877-564-4293 ext 79. I am
looking to see if your company may be interested in leasing over 250k
IP addresses (/14) from my company LogicWeb Inc (est 2004). Smaller
subnet leasing available as well. Thank you.
Like .  . October 10 at 5:45pm"

I hope you will join me in opposition to this as a way to keep AfriNIC
resources in Africa for use by African networks.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Ernest - (AfriNIC) <ernest at>
> Hi All,
> A new policy proposal has been received:
> "Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers" (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)
> It is published at:
> Also pasted below for comments and discussion from the PDWG/community:
> __________________________________________________
> Unique identifier:              AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01
> Draft Policy Name:      Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
> Author:                 Chad Abizeid, LogicWeb Inc
> Date:                   January 09, 2013
> Related Policies:               None
> Amends:                 None
> 1.0     Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
> Given the original geographical distribution of IPv4 address space and the
geographical distribution of current needs for IPv4 address space, it stands
to reason that no IPv4 address space should be 'locked up' within the RIR
service region they were originally allocated to.
> In order to prevent conflict, it also refers to policy for transfers of
the region the address space is being transferred to or from.
> 2.0     Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
> a.      Provides a minimal framework for Inter-RIR IPv4 address space
> b.      Maintains the integrity of AfriNIC's whois database and ensures
AfriNIC remains part of the approval and transfer process.
> c.      Allows African companies to participate in a market already
available to ARIN and APNIC LIRs;
> d.      Will allow AfriNIC LIRs with excess IPs to transfer to companies
in other RIR regions.
> 3.0     Proposal
> AfriNIC members can transfer part or all of their IPv4 addresses to any
company under the following criteria:
> 3.1     AfriNIC will recognize inter-RIR IPv4 address transfers only when
the counterpart RIR has an inter-RIR transfer policy that permits the
transfer of address space between AfriNIC and its own region
> 3.2     The minimum transfer size is a /24. The IPv4 address space should
be under the management of the RIR at which the originating LIR holds an
account and the authentic holder of the space should match with the source
without any disputes.
> 3.3     The originating LIR must provide evidence of compliance with RIR
policies with respect to past delegations.
> 3.4     The originating LIR and the IPv4 address space transferred are in
compliance with the originating RIR's policy.
> The conditions on the recipient of the transfer will be defined by the RIR
where the recipient organization holds an account. The following conditions
will therefore apply to the destination LIR:
> 3.5     The destination LIR and the IPv4 address space transferred are in
compliance with the Destination RIR's policies (see section 5.0 References
for ARIN policy).
> 3.6     There must be an inter-RIR IPv4 transfer policy in effect in the
Destination RIR service region at the time of transfer.
> 4.0     Revision History
> None
> 5.0     References
> .
> .
> __________________________________________________
> Regards,
> Ernest.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

rpd mailing list
rpd at


Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535> 
alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list