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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

Badru Ntege ntegeb at
Thu Jan 24 08:04:58 UTC 2013


Thanks for the feed back.  And yes there have been problems and I (as board chair) have all the confidence that these problems will gradually be eliminated.  We need to avoid clouding our innovation and potential growth on current limitations which is why i said the comments as welcome as they might be should not be used to cloud proposals.   

You will note I'm keeping my comments out of the actual content of the proposal.  We all know that there is a process after proposals have been discussed and passed by the community where then the issue of operationalization and sustainability comes in. 


On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:06 AM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at> wrote:

> Actually Badru,
> I have to disagree on this point.  The current levels of operational
> problems (and there have been MANY specific examples on this list in the
> last 2 weeks, that I'm not going to rehash again) are of huge concern.  It
> is pointless introducing more complexity and more overhead until these are
> resolved.  If things were running smoothly and you introduce some more
> complexity, you can figure out how to deal with it.  If things are in a
> mess, and you introduce more complexity, you compound the problem of solving
> the route cause.
> EVERY policy should be analyzed against its potential impact on operations
> and how it is going to affect service to us, the members, who rely on prompt
> swift service.  An analysis of this type can only happen in the context of
> what we know about CURRENT operations, else you have no starting point.  
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of
> Badru Ntege
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:13 AM
> To: JP Viljoen
> Cc: sm+afrinic at; policy-submission at; rpd at
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
> JP
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:27 AM, JP Viljoen <froztbyte at> wrote:
>> 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.
> Though we are all open to our opinions i think your point above is baseless.
> AfriNIC exists to serve the community and if there has been operation issues
> in the past (which you need to be very specific) it should not prevent the
> community from proposing a policy that they feel will serve there needs.
> Unless you are saying that AfriNIC does not and will never have the capacity
> to meet community needs.  Thats another discussion you need to start and be
> very specific.
> Lets please stick to the particulars of the policy discussion in question.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list