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)

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Mon Jan 14 16:56:45 UTC 2013

On Jan 14, 2013 5:40 PM, "Maina Noah" <mainanoa at> wrote:
> "I keep wondering why those non-African regions that have IPv4 space no
more, still have a need for v4 addresses anyway. I thought the so called
advanced world wound be focusing on continuing with the v6 deployment
rather than try to grab the few v4 space remaining in the AfriNIC region
for whatsoever purpose"...It's kind not sinking?????
++1 perhaps my reason for sighting Microsoft earlier ;-)

While no one doubts the need for Africa to be more proactive in V6
deployment; the approach proposed by this policy just don't go down well
with an African like me ;-)

> Noah Maina
> On 14 January 2013 13:36, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I have sat and thought about this reply for the last 2 days and well,
>> never been one to keep my mouth shut so here goes.
>> In looking at this there are actually two questions, one, why is v6
>> deployment so slow, and two, why is our v4 allocation rate as low as it
>> Why are we sitting on so much V4 space that isn't being used, to the
>> where we are discussing (again) letting the rest of the world use it via
>> whatever means.
>> I believe the two questions are highly related, we have loads of v4, so
>> people believe they will be able to keep getting it, so why bother going
>> Short sighted in the extreme I will admit, but it's something I hear over
>> and over again.  So, that leads to the second question, why are our v4
>> rates as low as they are...
>> Here is where I am about to get a little controversial.
>> Firstly, our v4 allocation process is cumbersome, slow, and quite frankly
>> bizarre.  Unless something has changed, AfriNIC currently has two
>> hostmasters, out of 40 odd staff, meaning these two individuals are
>> completely overloaded and your turnaround time to get new IP addresses is
>> multiple weeks.  Secondly, the process to get those addresses is complex
>> enough that people avoid it at all costs.  I know this for a fact,
>> I've had institutions (three so far), ask me to help process their
>> applications and do anything they can to avoid dealing with AfriNIC.  In
>> cases, we managed to justify the space and get the space in both cases in
>> around a months turnaround time (RIPE iirc was working on a coupla days
>> get space turned around).  In one of those two cases, it took 3 months to
>> get a genuine invoice issued that wasn't a proforma as was required by
>> clients accounts department.
>> In the third case, an institutions which we concretely proved was larger
>> than the first institution, the total amount of space allocated was
>> significantly less than the first two, due to complete inconsistency on
>> part of AfriNIC with regards to their requirements for IP space
>> justifications, and the arguments went on for more than 6 weeks.
>> When we do finally get v4 addressing, we end up with billing issues like
>> have seen last week.
>> Quite simply put, unless AfriNIC gets its house in order, simplifies the
>> process to get address space, is a HELL of a lot more clear about the
>> requirements to justify that space, and starts being consistent and
>> providing real service, people will continue to avoid dealing with them.
>> the words of one of my clients "I would rather NAT than go through that
>> process".  So yes, we have loads of IPv4 space, yes, the rest of the
>> is desperate for space, yes, we have massive infrastructure deployment
>> development on this continent which SHOULD be using space.  BUT people I
>> have spoken to and dealt with across the industry are afraid to deal with
>> AfriNIC because of inconsistent application of policy, bad service,
>> problems, weeks to respond to queries etc.
>> I strongly believe that our slow allocation rates are can be heavily
>> attributed to an organization that quite frankly, is simply not
delivering a
>> high standard of service.  This is of course not the only factor, but it
>> surely one major one.
>> Andrew
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at]
>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:11 AM
>> To: SM
>> Cc: Andrew Alston; rpd at
>> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
>> Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)
>> Admittedly, I don't live or have operations within the AfriNIC region, so
>> take my position or leave it as you see fit on that basis.
>> I oppose the proposal. I won't repeat what others have said, but I think
>> made an eloquent example regarding exploitation.
>> However, I do want to repond to Andrew and SM below because I think this
>> raises a tangential but much more important issue. Why IPv6 deployment is
>> slow moving in Africa and what can we do about it?
>> On Jan 11, 2013, at 12:33 PM, SM <sm at> wrote:
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> > At 11:23 11-01-2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> >> 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
>> reason.  ISP's want to make sure
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> I don't think "want to make sure" is the issue at this point. Anyone who
>> isn't sure about IPv6 by now isn't paying attention.
>> I think the issue is more insidious. I'll be talking about it in Zambia.
>> >> Why are our v6 deployment rates so chronically low on the African
>> continent?  Because the
>> >
>> > There are speeches and there is reality.  The IPv6 deployment rates is
>> what is actually happening.  IPv4 deployment rates is not that better.
>> >
>> I'm not sure about that.
>> However, the bigger problem, IMHO, is that due to economic realities,
>> is often faced with the dichotomy between buying current generation gear
>> unaffordable prices or buying the worlds previous or even two generations
>> old gear at 1/100th or so of the original price, rendering it much more
>> affordable.
>> In most circumstances, this means you get less bandwidth within the
>> continent, a few less features, and a generally poor, but better than the
>> generation before user experience. That's usually an acceptable tradeoff
>> when you don't have an economic model that will support buying current
>> generation gear and neither do your competitors. Especially when you take
>> into account the abysmal state and ridiculous cost of getting bits to and
>> from Africa from other continents.
>> Unfortunately, as the internet moves to IPv6 (and make no mistake, the
>> is accelerating and once IPv6 is ubiquitous in the developed world, the
>> to turn off IPv4 will be strong), this means that having equipment 1, 2,
>> even 3 generations old may mean you aren't able to communicate with the
>> of the internet. It doesn't matter how many IPv4 addresses you have if
>> the sites you want to reach are IPv6-only.
>> As a result, current and future purchases of equipment which is
incapable of
>> full IPv6 support (for whatever definition of full meets the needs of
>> particular organization) is, IMHO, foolhardy at any price.
>> I hope as many of you as possible will attend my talk in Zambia and I
>> forward to seeing you all there.
>> Owen
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list