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)

Sunday Folayan sfolayan at
Sun Jan 27 15:09:05 UTC 2013

On 27/01/2013 15:16, Badru Ntege wrote:
> :-)
> Sunday
> Thanks for your reply.  My questions are for clarification.

Ok Boss.

> again forgive my ignorance here but are we proposing that this be the way forward ??

One of the many possibilities! Not the only way, but this one is a low 
hanging fruit.

> if so lets make it clear.  My understanding and I'm prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong we have historically allocated by intended use i.e network plan and not population else as Africa we would be already sitting on a big chunk of the IP resources.

You must mean "Asia will be sitting on ..."  ?

> the 5:1 ratio has been well argued and eloquently defended and explained.  But as earlier stated it introduces the flaw.

Yes, Badru ... Democracy is a flawed form of Government, but still the 
most acceptable form of flawed government.

>> Seriously, You need to read this thread from the beginning and get to know what led to this proposal by Andrew and Yours truly (Senor Domingo).
> I have read and followed the thread and stated areas i feel need to be refined.  In principle i have no problem with a policy that makes resources available for academia, but i would rather have a defendable proposal with all holes plugged than a passionately presented proposal with flaws.

So ... what criteria will keep allocation simple, and make the resources 
available to them, so that the academia will not continue to NAT, NAT 
and NAT?  What is really wrong in photabtop? That is already 3 IP 

>> We are exploring ways of putting a resource with a short shelf life and high level of attraction to pirates and brokers, into use, and within the next 2 years. If you are tempted to think of it as hoarding, then call it "legitimate burn".
> I believe with continued dialogue and ideas on the list we can get to a better point where the above two options are not necessary.  They only become necessary when we don't fix the flaws.

Yes, I am open to dialog. If you point the flaws that need fixing, I 
promise to roll up my sleeves. For now, this proposal is in second 
draft, and the thorny part is the ratio ....  1:3 (which Andrew and I 
proposed) or 1:5 (which the community thinks is realistic).  Are you 
advocating 1:1 or 1:0.5?

> for the record in principle I'm in  support

lol.  your success as Chair is also important to me. Count on my support.


Sunday Adekunle Folayan
    email: sfolayan at, sfolayan at
    phone: +234-802-291-2202
    skype: sfolayan
    tweet: sfolayan
linkedin: sfolayan

More information about the RPD mailing list