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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Thanks Andrew and Owen for providing more clarification on this as i indeed
mis-understood the paragraph.

Regards
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree with what Owen says below.****
>
> ** **
>
> As I said, I would not mind adding some wording that allowed an
> institution to specify a lower ratio if they truly believed that it was in
> their interests, but I would not want to erode the fact that until you hit
> the 5:1 the justification is less onerous.  The policy does NOT currently
> stop you applying for more space though, it just requires additional
> documentation, where as your wording below Seun would stop them applying
> for more (and that’s got issues).****
>
> ** **
>
> Andrew****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Owen DeLong
> *Sent:* Monday, January 28, 2013 12:33 PM
> *To:* Seun Ojedeji
>
> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft
> (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 02:10 , Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Nii Narku Quaynor <quaynor at ghana.com>
> wrote:****
>
>
> > No. Not to my knowledge.
> >****
>
> Thanks. What prevents a university from receiving a 10:1 via current
> policies****
>
> ** **
>
> I also agree as the current policy as i quote below does not indicate any
> upper boundary limit****
>
> 3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources at
> a ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user, where campus user
> is defined in 3.2). ****
>
>  ****
>
> In view of this, i suggest a modification as thus:
>
> 3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources at
> a ratio not *more* than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user, where campus
> user is defined in 3.2). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Seun, I think you misunderstand.****
>
> ** **
>
> The policy does not require them to request at least 5:1. The policy as
> written means that AfriNIC cannot request additional justification for any
> request ≤ 5:1.****
>
> ** **
>
> Your proposed modification would, instead, reverse this such that AfriNIC
> could require additional justification at any ration and further could flat
> out deny any****
>
> request in excess of 5:1 which I think would have unintended consequences.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The intent was not to have an upper limit if sufficient justification is
> provided, but to streamline the justification process for any amount up to
> and including 5:1.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Since some institution may actually prefer to use less than 5 to 1 ratio,
> not because they don't want but probably because of the infrastructure
> limitation they have which is largely related to funding****
>
> ** **
>
> I would recommend that such an institution obtain the addresses and then
> seek additional funding for their network.****
>
> ** **
>
> I do not believe that minimizing address requests up front is a winning or
> desirable strategy at the current rate of evolution of network capabilities
> in the region.****
>
> ** **
>
> Owen****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130128/74fdc656/attachment.html>