Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
Tue Jan 22 22:51:00 UTC 2013
At 14:27 22-01-2013, JP Viljoen wrote:
>Going over Andrew's response from a little bit earlier, I find that
>he has already highlighted a very large amount of problems with this
>proposal. I'd like to point out some more, and/or different viewpoints on it.
>First off, I would like to state that I think this policy would give
>an intention for AfriNIC to move from the position of registry to
>the position of IP Police. A number of the clauses (as quick
>examples, the entireity of 9, much of 8) seem to be worded in such a
>fashion that it would allow AfriNIC to say whether your use of IP is
>- to steal some wording from Hemmingway - honest and true. This is
>not (and should not be) the function/role of AfriNIC, and you can
>verify this by looking at the roles that other RIRs play. AfriNIC's
>role is as one-true-source of who-has-what. Nothing more. The
>policies that govern its allocation practices should be ones that,
>as stated early in the document, benefit everyone involved. I do not
>believe this policy proposal benefits anyone *but* AfriNIC, and
>that's only if AfriNIC could maintain it successfully. Which leads
>me to the next point:
I looked up Section 8 and 9 against the existing policy
(AFPUB-2005-v4-001). There isn't much of a difference between the two.
>It is already widely known that dealing with AfriNIC is an arduous
>and length process, due to various (seemingly senseless) hoops one
>has to jump through just for the purpose of getting your network
>onto the internet. The reasons for this, as best as people can make
>out from the outside, are also reasonably well known: AfriNIC is
>already overloaded. This proposal would add *even more* burden to
>that workload, and merely on those grounds can be considered imbecillic.
As this is a proposal it is up to people to comment on how to make
the process less arduous and lengthy.
>Now, with the general sentiment set, let's get onto some of the
>Valid assignments can be replaced with the same number of IPv4 addresses if
>the original assignment criteria are are still met. The IPv4 addresses
>to be replaced must still be in use. When a renumbering request exceeds the
>LIR's sub-allocation window, the request should be sent to AfriNIC for
>A LIR will be given a period of up to three months to migrate to the new IPv4
>address space. The LIR may request additional time if there is appropriate
>justification. Once a network has been renumbered, AfriNIC will remove the
>old assignment from the AfriNIC Whois."""
>The wording in this paragraph belies the fact that the author(s) of
>this policy have never been involved in any form of meaningful
>internet-scale network operations *IN THEIR LIVES*. The very idea of
>forcing an entity to renumber for a new allocation is utter and
>complete madness. Consider, for every single growth tier an entity
>reaches, they would need to redo their entire network, end to end.
>Again. And again. This could even happen multiple times a year; for
>proof, see the growth of many wifi WISPs that discovered a sudden
>boom when they tapped into market demand. Further to this, I'm also
>aware of some fairly braindead pieces of hardware that do not
>actually even allow a change of IP, due to licensing construction
>and so. These pieces of hardware, or even just the license itself,
>typically tends to number in the multiple zeroes (of USD) when it
>comes to pricing, so this would be an economically unfeasible
>practice to do even just once, nevermind multiple times.
I commented about this in my reply to Andrew Alston.
>The general tone of the assignment procedures is also very unclear
>about many parts, and appears to keep revolving around LIRs becoming
>the centerpoint for everything. This, again, is a very bad idea. PI
>space, for example, is a perfectly plausible thing for an individual
>to have used and announced on the internet by ways of friendly
>networks. BGPMon, for example, gets a free BGP feed from a fairly
>large number of networks, and started out as a technical project
>venture. This is exactly the sort of thing that could get born out
>of PI space, by the mere result of an admin's tinkering on network
>stats. To centralize everything around LIRs strikes me as a "father
>knows best" approach, and the fact that much of the rest of this
>policy document makes LIRs accountable to AfriNIC for the actions of
>both themselves and their sub-allocations is misguided in the extreme.
It helps everyone if the procedures are clear. I'll try and comment
about the proposal in a further message.
More information about the RPD