[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPV4 Allocation Policy - Draft 1

Tue Jan 15 19:40:28 UTC 2013

Hi Owen,

Happy to remove the upper limit and allow for justification of higher, so
long as the 4:1 is accepted as the de-facto minimum without need for mass
justification to get there.  How does this sound?

Andrew

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:34 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPV4 Allocation Policy - Draft 1

On Jan 15, 2013, at 11:24 AM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Owen,

For one thing, 3 is ridiculously low. I can't imagine that we won't face a
future where students have at a minimum, a laptop, smart phone, and tablet
device of some form (3). Likely there will also be several that keep desktop
computers in their dorm rooms. (4).

I actually tend to agree with you that 3 is on the low side, since for one
thing, the number is likely to grow, and for another, institutional student
counts grow all the time as population growth occurs.  The number that I
proposed here was based on a sampling done from several institutions that
put the number at between 2.2 and 2.5 at current, so I wanted to allow for
some growth but not put down a number that was unreasonably high.  I would
fully support changing this to a 4:1 however.  While a 5:1 may be a better
number to use on a global scale, we also need to take into account the
African context and the limited time frame where this policy will be in
effect (due to the fact that African IPv4 space will have run out).  When we
consider this, the chances of us getting to a 5:1 ratio in terms of
requirements across the continent before the world has already moved beyond
the need for IPv4 is probably pretty small.

While I readily admit you have a better perspective on the situation within
Africa than I do, I still think that your survey likely fails to account for
addresses not directly used by students when coming to a 2.2-2.5 conclusion.

Add the need for addresses for servers, infrastructure, computer labs, etc.
and you are probably closer to 6 or 7 if not approaching 10.

I believe that the 4:1 ratio would cater for this, again, if you have a
student base of even 10 thousand students, under a 4:1 ratio you are looking
at a /16 network after prefix round up, this is sufficient to number the
servers, lab pcs and staff etc.  It becomes even more so if you consider a
student base of 20 or 30 thousand students when the roundup is taken into
account.

Sure, but if you have a student population of 7800, then the 4:1 ration puts
you at a /17 and you have almost no room beyond the 4 addresses used by each
student.

I would support the policy if the policy statement were modified as follows:

Replace 3.4 with:

3.4 Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources at a
ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per student, rounded up to the nearest
bit-aligned prefix. Applications based on a ratio as high as 10:1 shall be
given due consideration and should be approved unless the justification is
believed by AfriNIC staff to be specious or fraudulent in nature.

Would you still support if we modified 3.4 to change the 5 to 4, and change
the 10:1 to 6:1.  In addition, while I need to discuss this with my
co-author, I would prefer to see the latter part of your rewording here as a
little less ambiguous.  I am hoping for a situation where applications where
the documentation supplied by the policy is provided are defacto approved,
without ANY ambiguity that leaves room for weeks of arguing and back and
forth that has been occurred.  With the wording proposed, I worry that we
introduce more ambiguity back into the process.  Thoughts?

No. I would not. I would support it with the first change (5->4), but
reducing 10 to 6 places an absurd limitation that I would consider
unacceptable. If you want to remove the upper bound altogether and simply
state that any justified higher number should also be

accepted, then I would support that.

Owen

Andrew

On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Andrew Alston <
<mailto:alston.networks at gmail.com> alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

Please see the policy proposed below and can we get some discussion going so
that we can modify/edit as the community feels necessary in order to get
this tabled at the next meeting later this year.

Thanks

Andrew

Unique Identifier:            AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-01

Draft Policy Name:          Academic IPv4 Allocation

Policy Author(s):              Andrew Alston  <mailto:aa at alstonnetworks.net>
aa at alstonnetworks.net

                                                Sunday Folayan
<mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com.ng> sfolayan at skannet.com.ng

Date:                                     January 14, 2013

Related Policies:               None

Amends:                              None

1)            Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

Given that the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Africa are growing,
and that Internet access within these academic Institutions is critical to
the educational experience of students, it is necessary to provide
sufficient address space to these HEIs to allow them to function
effectively.  When we consider that such institutions are constantly
upgrading their Infrastructure and bandwidth to support technologies which
are severely limited in environments using Network Address Translation
(NAT), we believe that it is important that HEIs desirous of public address
space should have the ability to migrate away from NAT. Such migration will
help promote technologies such as multicast and the convergence of voice and
data networks, which will in turn drive down the costs within such
institutions.

By promoting the elimination of NATs, this proposal will also assist
Universities in their migration to IPv6, and in fact, to qualify under this
proposal, dual-stack and/or rollout of IPv6 at the qualifying institution is
mandatory.

2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

                a) This proposal will simplify the allocation of address
space to HEIs by detailing and simplifying the address justification
criteria

                b) This proposal recognizes HEIs as end users, and removes
the confusion previously seen where arguments have occurred as to the status
of the applying institution.

                c) This proposal helps to reduce the dependence of HEIs on
NATs, and is in line with AfriNIC's own policy of not promoting the usage of
such translation mechanisms.

                d) This proposal encourages the adoption of IPv6 by making
the rollout of IPv6 a criterion for qualification under this proposal.

3) Proposal

Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on the
number of registered full time students on their campus.

3.1) To qualify for address space, Academic institutions will need to apply
as end users and provide the following documentation:

                3.1.1) Proof of University registration/accreditation

                3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered full time students

3.2)  In addition to the documentation specified in clause 3.1, institutions
will need to provide details of planned/current IPv6 roll-outs, including
committed time frames for the roll-out of IPv6.

3.3) For the purposes of this policy, the roll-out of IPv6 can only be
considered to be a true IPv6 roll-out, if IPv6 is extended to the edge of
the network, beyond just the core/server infrastructure.

3.4) Under the policy, an HEI shall qualify for IP addresses on the basis of
a 1:3 student:address ratio, so as to cater for the wide spread and
increasing use of portable devices

(smartphones/tablets/notebooks) being brought onto campus by students.

3.5) HEIs will be classified as End Users under this policy, on provision of
a duly authorized letter from the institution management stating that
address space allocated will not be used outside of the campus/academic
environment.

3.6) HEIs qualifying under this proposal will qualify for the same academic
discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the time of
application.

3.7) Since any HEI that has a large base of full time registered students,
has to, by the very nature of their function, have equipment on campus, this
policy dispenses for the need for a HEI to provide detailed proof of
equipment and infrastructure.

_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
 <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> rpd at afrinic.net
 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130115/73f465a7/attachment.html>