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

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

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Tue Jan 15 20:32:22 UTC 2013

Hi Seun/Owen,


Ok, I can see the support for a 5:1 and I don't object to this if the
community is in agreement.


With regards to the part time vs full time, I see both sides of this
argument.  I also see that calculating on FTE's could be complicated and
lead to exactly the type of complexity in an application we are attempting
to avoid.  That being said, I am concerned with a wholesale inclusion of
part time students.  Hence, If we use a 0.5 multipler on part time students,
or some other multiplier to be suggested by the community, I'd also support
that approach.


With regards to students, yes, I agree that we could include the staff
numbers into the count.  This would mean a rewording that referred to
"registered students and employees of the institution" or something along
those lines.







From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:28 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd at
Subject: RE: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPV4 Allocation Policy - Draft 1


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

> 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

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

> 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