Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 01:37:18 UTC 2013
On Jan 17, 2013 6:10 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" <quaynor at ghana.com> wrote:
> So, pardon me if I missed the essence of this proposal
Interesting this is coming in after over 50 mails from community and still
but here are some questions to work with. If it is late hit delete
Definitely not a delete button ;-) I had earlier thought about this
toobut decided not to raise it based on the fact you have mentioned; the
ratio/size of IPs required is what make this unique.
Perhaps a modification of the existing policy can be applicable.
> The proposal was justified by
> - Ipv6 adoption
> - nat removal
> - ratio 1:5 as criteria for allocation
> - HEI is defined as end user
> What I did not see is how existing policies impede HEI achieving this or
how the proposal dramatically improves things for HEI
> Current polices promote both ipv6 adoption and nat removal and have
special programs and fees unique to HEI. Perhaps the new variable is the
allocation based on campus population and ratio as opposed to network
> Do we have a good feel that HEIs in membership prefer to be classified as
end users or LIR? Have we argued how this policy will improve the lot of
HEI networks or explored quantitatively how the policy works
> Thus as much as I support the proposal I wonder if same may not be
achievable in existing policy framework
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 20:29, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at gmail.com>
>> Hi All,
>> Sunday and I have looked at the comments coming back from the list, and
would like to propose a second draft of our policy as seen below. While we
realize that the debate between full time and part time students is
probably still going to continue, for the purposes of this draft we have
chosen to use Owen’s proposed formula until there is more clarity on
community will on this one. Beyond that this draft attempts to address the
issue of employees in addition to students, changes the ratio from 3 to 5
as seems to be the will of the membership body and adds a clause allowing
for allocations larger than the default 1:5 ratio, providing there is
justification provided, while at the same time NOT imposing any further
justification requirements needed for the 1:5 default ratio.
>> We look forward to your comments and further changes/modifications.
>> Unique Identifier: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02
>> Draft Policy Name: Academic IPv4 Allocation
>> Policy Author(s): Andrew Alston aa at alstonnetworks.net
>> Sunday Folayan
sfolayan at skannet.com.ng
>> Date: January 16, 2013
>> Related Policies: None
>> Amends: None
>> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy
>> 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
>> By promoting the elimination of NATs, this proposal will also assist
HEIs in their migration to IPv6, and in fact, to qualify under this
proposal, dual-stack and/or rollout of IPv6 at the qualifying institution
>> 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
>> 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
>> 3) Proposal
>> Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on
the sum of the number of registered students and employees on their
>> 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 Institution’s registration/accreditation
>> 3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered students
>> 3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.
>> 3.2) This policy applies a ratio to a head count of campus users, where
the number of campus users is calculated using a formula of full time
students + full time employees + (part time students * 0.5)
>> 3.3) 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.
>> 3.4) 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.
>> 3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources
at a ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user, where campus
user is defined in 3.2).
>> 3.6) While 3.4 defines a minimum accepted ratio for which the
justification is clearly defined in 3.1, applications based on a ratio as
high as 10:1 shall be given due consideration and should be approved unless
the justification for such increased ratio is believed by AfriNIC staff to
be specious or fraudulent in nature.
>> 3.7) 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
>> 3.8) HEIs qualifying under this proposal will qualify for the same
academic discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the
time of application.
>> 3.9) Since any HEI that has a large base of registered students and full
time staff, 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.
>> 4.1) Revision History (For all but the first draft):
>> Version 1 – Added 3.1.3 to include justification of employee count.
Added a new point 3.2 and 3.4, meaning that sequential numbering changed,
where the original 3.2 became 3.3, 3.4 became 3.5, 3.6 was a new point,
meaning original 3.6 -> 3.8 became 3.7 -> 3.9. Added 3.2 to define the
calculation of head count to which the address ratio calculation is
applied. Modified 3.5 to change the ratio from 1:3 to 1:5 as per requests
from the RPD list. Added 3.6 to allow for allocations larger than the
de-facto 1:5 ratio upon submission of additional documentation, while
maintaining the need for minimal justification if the ratio applied for did
not exceed the 1:5 mark.
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD