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

[SM]

Hi David,
At 16:17 14-01-2013, David Conrad wrote:
>My impression is that the reason for the smallest % of IPv4 
>allocations being in the AfriNIC region is that it is a function of 
>the relative lack of infrastructure and/or

There was a comment on another mailing list ( 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-September/007154.html 
)

The infrastructure is still being set up.  There are several undersea 
cables which may be operational next year.  Andrew Alston mentioned 
previously that he needed more IPv4 address space.  I don't want to 
be the person who has to tell him that there isn't any left. :-)

Assuming that IPv4 address space can be transferred to other regions, 
it won't last long.    The projections for consumptions are based on 
historical data.  I don't assume the same rate of consumption as the 
infrastructure will be there.

>However, we're now at a point where the AfriNIC free pool of IPv4 
>addresses is larger than the other RIRs with consumption projections 
>(however flawed) that suggest AfriNIC will continue to have IPv4 
>addresses long after the other regions have consumed their IPv4 free 
>pools. It isn't clear to me that having a large IPv4 free pool is a 
>good thing as it means those addresses are not being used to provide 
>Internet connectivity.

There isn't any easy answer to all this.  I don't think that your 
arguments are not good.  If I have to support dual-stack I'll still 
need IPv4 address space.  Would the regional free pool be less than 
other regions in a short period?  I don't have an answer to that.

Nii Quaynor asked "How come Africa having the smallest overall 
allocation % of v4".  If there was hoarding it should not be so 
small.  We are discussing about IPv4 addresses for more than 50 
countries.  The decision affects the development of these countries.

Regards,
-sm