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

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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Tue Jan 15 20:28:10 UTC 2013

Hey Andrew,

The ratio is fine, somehow I had read that part the other way round ;-)
Meanwhile I also agree with Owen's ratio proposal do maybe 1:5 is
futuristic-ally realistic :-).
On the FTE, I don't agree with that, unless we don't want to face the
reality on ground. Part time students are entitled to everything a full
time is entitled to on campus as it relates to resources. I don't think we
should look at access to the network infrastructure on a hourly basis as
students can decide to access the network at any time. Infact most students
handheld devices are up and running 24/7 (so long as they reside within
campus they connect) So they need be included. Which is why i still think
re-wording that section to read "registered students" will ensure all
students cadre are covered. Come to think of it, will we refer php/some
masters students as full timers? No....but they are registered students
that may even require access than some other so called full time students

On a lighter note,I wonder why we don't really count staff as part of the
user..for debate. Those numbers really count, especially if we are looking
at it from the ratio level...also a staff residing in staff quarters with
his/her kids will definately increase the number of users...unless we are
saying staff quarters (which is running campus network) is not the same

Sent from Google Nexus
Skype: seun.ojedeji
On Jan 15, 2013 8:24 PM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at> wrote:

> Hi Seun,****
> ** **
> > Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on
> the number of registered full time students on their campus.
> >
> This should be reworded as institution has lots of part time students. So
> I guess using"registered students" will be better. Btw this should not only
> include students,I think staff can also be quite a bunch?
> >
> ****
> What I would actually prefer to do here, is use the FTE standard, provided
> it, or some equivalent is accepted across the continent.  Where FTE’s are
> considered “Full time equivalent”.   The problem with doing this is that it
> leaves some ambiguity, since I am not sure what the formula is to calculate
> FTE’s and if FTE numbers necessarily available at institutions across the
> continent (As far as I know, in South Africa, FTE numbers are audited and
> reported on, I am not sure if this applies elsewhere, perhaps someone could
> comment?)****
> >
> > 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
> >
> ****
> See above, happy to make this registered students, though I think it may
> prove complicated to do that, the FTE method may be better, but I think
> it’s open for discussion.    Perhaps we could get some comment on this
> issue from some of other academically involved people on the list? ****
> > 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.
> >
> maybe plan and not details and it should be clear on what the plan would
> entail.****
> > 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.
> >
> ****
> ....If The v6 PLAN
> ****
> ** **
> I agree with this change, and am happy to reword with regards to “plan”.**
> **
> ** **
> > 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
> >
> ****
> guess you meant 3:1****
> No, I meant 1:3 student:address, as in, if you have 20 thousand students,
> you would get a /16 (20,000*3 rounded up to nearest bit aligned prefix).  I
> will respond separately on the issue of the ratio when I respond to Owen’s
> email in a few minutes however.****
> It should be clear what infrastructure is refereed is it v6 or v4****
> On this point I don’t agree, since the idea is to eliminate the need to
> justify against infrastructure, but rather justify against student numbers
> and population count.  The moment you introduce the whole infrastructure
> justification thing, you enter into a state of paralysis with AfriNIC as
> has been demonstrated with previous academic applications.  AfriNIC has not
> deemed it acceptable up until now to accept the likes of network diagrams
> or switch port counts or anything else, they generally want invoices, arp
> tables and god knows what else, information which is often extremely
> difficult to obtain and supply considering that a large institution could
> be sitting with hundreds if not thousands of switches and devices,
> purchased over long periods of time and furthermore, when supplying AfriNIC
> with invoices etc, very often those things have to be redacted to remove
> pricing information that was supplied to the institution under NDA.  (And
> trust me, I’ve sat redacting invoices for this purpose in the past, it’s a
> nightmare).  Remove the infrastructure requirement, base it on the student
> count and this also allows for the institution in question to grow its own
> infrastructure with space that is dictated by head count, not what
> equipment they have already purchased.****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list