[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 22, 2013, at 13:21 , sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.  I'll comment inline.
> 
> At 12:01 22-01-2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It seems to me that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.5 are virtually identical and should be consolidated into a single
>> combined definition of the interchangeable terms LIR and ISP.
> 
> I left it in as there are occurrences of "ISP" in other sections.  I'll wait for other people to comment on whether there are ISPs in Africa which are not LIRs to see whether to combine 2.3 and 2.5.
> 
We handled this in ARIN by simply using a definition that said "The terms LIR and ISP are considered equivalent
and are used interchangeably throughout this document."

>> The definition in 2.6 is utterly vague and not necessarily accurate. I have, for example, been an end-user of
>> many community networks with which I had no legal or commercial relationship.
> 
> That's the definition which is currently used.  I'll wait for feedback from people who have been had problems justifying their requests to get a better view of the problem.
> 

Since this appears to be a major overhaul, I figure we might as well get it right.

May I humbly suggest:

An end user is an organization which does not make sub-allocations, allocations, or re-assignments
of any form, but uses the space strictly within their own organization.

>> The wording in 2.8 which claims that a delegation to an ISP is an assignment and not an allocation seems
>> incorrect and should be moved to 2.7 since ISP and LIR are essentially the same in this regard.
> 
> There is a mention of "downstream ISPs" in Section 7.4.  See http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/membership-eligibility for information about eligibility for resource requests.
> 

Yes, but any delegation to a downstream ISP should be a sub-allocation or allocation, not an assignment
as that ISP will likely be making further sub-delegations.

>> 2.10 -- Why does PI space have to be assigned through an LIR? Why not support end-users being able
>> to get PI space directly from the RIR? I know RIPE-NCC does not do this, but ARIN, LACNIC, and APNIC
>> all support direct PI assignments.
> 
> PI space is covered by a different policy.  Section 2.10 can be removed if it is not a problem for anyone in the service region.
> 

Certainly this policy should not be written in such a way as to indicate that PI space must be obtained through
an LIR. If PI space is covered in a separate policy, then this policy should only refer to that policy and should
contain no other mention of PI space, IMHO.

>> 7.1 --
>> 
>> While I think /22 is valid for minimum allocation, if you take my suggestion to allow direct assignments,
>> the minimum assignment size should probably be /24.
> 
> That's already the case as there is an existing policy for end users.
> 

Yes, see my comment above. Given what you have said, eliminating the PI confusion in favor of
a reference to the other policy seems the correct course here.

>> Enumerating each of the RIRs seems like a potential time-bomb. What happens if another RIR is
>> added and nobody remembers to update this document? Why not just collectively refer to them as
>> the various RIR Whois databases?
> 
> Yes. :-)  I'll try to find some appropriate wording.

You didn't like "the various RIR whois databases"?

> 
>> 9 -- The sub-allocation window should probably also apply to assignments.
> 
> Yes.  I'll change that to "may sub-allocate or assign".
> 
>> 9.1(b) is indecipherable to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>> As near as I can tell, under 9.1(a)+9.1(b) a new LIR can never allocate anything.
> 
> That's from the existing policy.  9.1 (a) applies to a new LIR.  9.1 (b) applies to LIRs who have a non-zero SAW.  9.1 (b) could be:
> 
>  (b) A LIR cannot make any sub-allocation to the end user above their
>      SAW in a 12 months period (one calendar year).  In case the LIR's
>      SAW is exhausted for a particular end user, approval must be sought
>      from AfriNIC for any other sub-allocation to the same end user.
> 

That comes closer. It might be good to expand 9.1(a) to indicate that any
allocations/assignments approved by AfriNIC are exempt from 9.1(b).

> Section 9 could be:
> 
>  A sub-allocation window (SAW) refers to the maximum number of IPv4 addresses
>  that the LIR may sub-allocate or assign to end users within a calendar year
>  without seeking approval from AfriNIC.
> 

That would certainly make it more clear.

Owen