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

[Adiel Akplogan]

Hello Andrew,

On 2013-01-15, at 17:53 PM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously though, first prize in my book is to use the remaining pool in Africa, and get it allocated.  THIS is where I believe that AfriNIC is currently failing, and failing badly.  Because of the current process, the delays, the back and forth, the moving goal posts, the inconsistency and the lack of service we are seeing out of the organization, there is a resistance among many to apply for space.  

You have to substantiate more the fact the current process is what make IP usage low in AFRINIC service region.  That is too simplistic and naive view which I beg not to share. Not that I'm dismissing some of the issues you had or raising. 

Remember, IP addresses are not resources that we are requested just to give away to the first person that come and ask them (even if in our internal policy we put emphasis on helping small requestors to get what they need as easily as possible but still inline with policies). Demonstrated needs is still at play. The IP Analysts (aka Hostmasters) have the responsibility to do due diligence on all requests they receive and particularly for big requests and/or suspicious ones. They have the ability to use their judgement and assessment based on policy and information requestors provide and they are allowed to ask any questions they need to ensure that the request and the need are genuine and real. That is what the IPv4 allocation policy request them (and AFRINIC as company to do). If the community want to soften the process then we first need to change/review the IPv4 Allocation policy (not only for education or High education as the connectivity need can be extrapolate across the border) which could be seen as a good thing to do at some extend. 

On a separate note you keep coming with the statement that you were told that "if a student is in a Lab he is not using his mobile because it is off so you can not plan 3 IP address per student in your planing" and conclude from that that the hostmasters are being difficult and sometime even "incompetent". First I think you need separate informal discussion that you can have with staff and hostmasters when you pushing them to the edge (I know you had personal informal discussion with the staff on various matters where you try to push them hard toward you views) where they can tell you things that may engage them as individual and not AFRINIC in such informal discussion. Sometime it is just to push you as well to the edge to see how far you are serious with your arguments … it is for you to prove them wrong with facts. When you have escalated these requests to me I have checked all the ticketing system for such statement and I can't find any (member of the team though agree that they told you that in a discussion because you have not given valid justification at the first place as they have requested you … so that was just one statement amongst others to push so that you disclose the real justifications of your requests - Which you eventually did as requested and got what you needed). If you submitted a complex request you should expect a complex evaluation process (at least based on the current IPv4 policy). Does it happen to you to think that practices can be different from one lab to another and from an university to another? Your 3:1 ratio is not something that is true and demonstrable everywhere;  somewhere it can be less and other place an context even more (based on current need). The current utilisation and the 12 month plan are basically what Hostmasters use to evaluate a request. I have been quiet on many of your statements on the Hostmaster interaction with you but there are also many faces to the story that you do not disclose fully. We are still in a full need demonstration based allocation. If the community want that to change then a policy need to be proposed.

You may have a point on some aspects of you frustration on delay but they do not justify your desire to set a policy that suite your own case in every corner and every time you face an unusual situation. If a an operator being a University or not start with a huge request (/14 and more) with no background whatsoever on the previous utilisation (legacy) of resources they have been using over the past 20 years … it is obvious that if you have not kept good track of your records and internal usage justifications, when you are asked 20 years down the road to justify it will look a lot of work, but hey you need to do it. The Hostmasters have handled more than 120 requests last years and none have been really rejected (and only very few are pending additional information from requestor). Yes some took time because they have to ask all kind of questions and get justification for usage. This generally happen for big requests and some which are not straight forward. If people take the usage and the request of resources seriously and they have all their facts right the process is generally fast. We have had several cases where things went well and smoothly. There are some tweak here and there to adjust process to the growth and believe me we are working hard on that over the past few months. But woking on that also need other resources than IP analysts and you are the first to complain that there are too much people doing other things. Here is the distribution of resources used/allocated per activity within AFRINIC:

Registration Service:  47%
Community Outreach:     3%
Policy Development:     7%
Training               12%
IpV6 Outreach:          8%
Software Maintenance:  11%
Administration:        11%

Almost half of our current resources are used to support Registration service. You can not only look at those who have the title of Hostmaster but also to all the other who allow them to the job right. The current ratio of request per day per hostmaster is 2 in average (not only for new membership/allocations but all other members requests). This is generally reported in Registration Service report during each AFRINIC meeting.

We agree that there are things that need to be addressed/improved in term of process and procedure, but you need not to look at things only from one side of the fence. We have taken full note of the outcome of the past community survey and integrated many aspect in our strategy for 2013 and related budget currently in discussion. And we closely looking at further enforcing some of our commitments in term of service quality. 

Thank you and as you know I'm alway available to discuss any issue that you can have and address them. 

We are working and willing to work for the advancement of the region and our community. But we can not expect AFRINIC to solve all the problem of the continent and be on all front with it current resources and get perfection from everywhere. I'm hereby committing AFRINIC to seriously (we are already doing it) look at all issues raised in a sustainable way. 

- a.