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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

Sunday Folayan sfolayan at
Thu Jan 24 12:59:57 UTC 2013

Thanks Andrew,

I still need some clarifications to your response:

On 24/01/2013 13:21, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi Sunday,
> See comments inline.  These are based on my understanding of what is in SM's
> policy and my reading of it.

I wanted answers that are not specific to proposed policies. Is that 

>    1. a consumer requesting for PI space from the RIR must be multi-homed.
> True or false?
> No - There are multiple reasons why a client might need PI space outside of
> multi-homing.  Any large institution SHOULD in my  opinion be on PI space,
> as using LIR space locks them to a particular provider.  It makes migrating
> from one provider to another extremely difficult, and many large
> organizations would prefer not to lock themselves into a specific ISP.  This
> also creates business risk, if your ISP goes bust and you are on space
> provided by them, you are forced into a renumbering exercise when you are
> forced to change providers.  This isn't sensible.   However, under the new
> proposal, NO ONE will be able to get PI space directly from the RIR.


>    2. Request for PI space must be made direct to the RIR not through an LIR.
> True or False?
> That is the current status quo, under SM's policy this changes, requests for
> PI space will be directed through an LIR... and this is one of the MAJOR
> points of concern I have with the new policy

SM, why do you want it that way? what additional value add is envisaged?

>    3. PA space must always be obtained from an LIR, not the RIR. True or
> False?
> That is the current status quo and is maintained in the new policy, it's
> also globally accepted practice and I have no issues with it.

Good. This is clear.

>    4. An LIR must be an ISP? True or False?
> This is unclear, though my reading of the policy as proposed by SM would
> make this the case.

What is not clear about this one please?

>    5. What additional demands do ISPs place on the RIR, which LIRs do not?
> None that I can see - LIR/ISP in  this context are synonymous with each
> other

so ... Q4 must be Yes eh?

>    6. Why is PI space sooo cheap globally, compared to PA Space?
> This is a complicated question, but my belief is this.  Firstly, LIR's have
> the option to recover costs from their clients who they are assigning to,
> and in many cases, LIR's treat IP's as profit centres and not cost recovery
> when doing assignments.  End Users however do not really have the option to
> "recover" cost, it is merely a cost of doing business.  This changes the
> model.  This also explains why LIR's pay higher initial fees and lower
> annual fees, whereas LIR's who are in effect sub-leasing space can recover
> space costs from client subscriptions.   This is my opinion on this though,
> but I suspect there are other reasons.

So .. and organization such as google (>40% destination on the Internet) 
or Yahoo or Microsoft will still be seen as not recovering cost from 
their use of PI space?

>    7. Apart from the Research and Education, what other sector needs PI
> space, who cannot pay for the mass of IP addresses required, just like ISPs?
> Any NPO who needs PI space could have similar financial constraints.  Since
> any organization that multi-homes (or has PI space for other reasons) may
> face constraints like these.  Keep in mind, an individual person who is
> multi-homed could be using PI space when it's not even a large company (and
> I know of several private individuals who are multi-homed at home who do
> this, particularly consultants who rely on their connectivity that they need
> backup, and at the same time have need for static ip addressing)

So ... individuals care get /24 PI space when all they need is just a 
few addresses? Isn't that wasteful?

>    8. Beyond aggregating, what else is done to PA space that is not done to
> PI space?
> When LIRs assign space to a downstream they are required to register who it
> is assigned to with AfriNIC, so while the space itself is aggregated in BGP
> announcements, the registration of who has what space is the reverse, it is
> deaggregated and split up and constantly updated in the database.

Ok ... so the more work by the LIRs justify the more money they charge 
the end-users. Can't we just use some protocol that can make their own 
registry of clients talk to that of AfriNIC whois? Something like EPP in 
the Names domain? I just don't get that part.


More information about the RPD mailing list