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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Fri Jan 25 20:01:30 UTC 2013

Hi Nii,

We tried the network plan route... unfortunately it's been proven not to
work and to be highly subjective when it comes to evaluation.

In an application where documented evidence was submitted of a network
comprising of over 30 thousand network ports, tender documents submitted to
show the procurement of well over a thousand access points that were in
process, a student population of I believe around 60 thousand students,
countless servers, detailed network diagrams detailing the exact port counts
on every switch on the network... AfriNIC started to argue usage
concurrency.  As a result an institution that was DOUBLE the size of another
institution who had received their space less than 3 months earlier, despite
submitting far more documentation and justification, ended up with
significantly less space.  We even attempted to offer AfriNIC a compromise,
give us HALF what we are requesting, provided we use it within 3 months, and
can demonstrate proof of utilization of it, you give us the other half, you
just don't charge us again.  We were told no, they would give us X, and if
we wanted more, PAY PAY PAY, another couple of THOUSAND dollars.  The reason
for not accepting the compromise? "That doesn't work with our systems, after
allocation we have to close the ticket..." Sorry, not buying it...

The evaluation is a subjective process right now, it is NOT evaluated in an
objective manner, and things such as port counts seem to have little
relevance.   To evaluate network plans and utilization also requires
experience with such networks, and I have been told openly by senior AfriNIC
membership that such things as large wifi networks and port counts
"sometimes look suspicious" because of lack of experience in large networks.
To this end, we even suggested that the hostmasters come and spend time on
large campuses to see what REALLY goes on, it was never followed up on...
the offer is still open...

At the moment, the only objective criteria we have that we can set in stone
to avoid the subjectivity in evaluation is the human population count on a
campus, that is, unless AfriNIC is going to stop being subjective and
questioning the applications of institutions that have been established for
decades, have published statistics of student counts, have submitted
invoices and justifications and 40 other pages of documentation.

One of the reasons for proposing this policy, STOP THE SUBJECTIVITY, make
the criteria firm and objective, so that applications are not granted based
on how well someone is liked, or the mood someone is in.


-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of
Nii Narku Quaynor
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:32 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: AfriNIC List
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft

On Jan 25, 2013, at 16:54, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

> Yes, 5 may be a bit generous by today's standards, but I don't think it's
unreasonably generous.

I am happy for universities to have 5+ but that ought to be determined from
network plan not from population
rpd mailing list
rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list