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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Tue Jan 29 21:37:17 UTC 2013

Hi Owen,
At 12:44 29-01-2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>If the distinction is not black and white, it becomes very difficult 
>to make it
>a consistent shade of gray. Policy that is not black and white tends to be
>subjective in its nature and makes it very difficult for AfriNIC 
>staff to apply
>it consistently.


The PDWG can offer specific guidance to the AfriNIC hostmaster.  That 
constraints what the AfriNIC hostmaster can do.  A genuine request 
might be rejected as that's what the policy says.  On the other hand 
specific guidance provides clarity to the requester.  I am okay with 
whatever the community chooses.

>Technically, at this point, you have become an LIR, IMHO. However, I 
>accept that
>there shouldn't necessarily be a fee implication to doing this. How 
>about something
>like this:
>End-User -- An organization which does not delegate resources to 
>other external
>organizations and therefore does not generate SWIP or other sub-delegation or
>re-assignment records.
>Casual LIR -- An organization which is primarily an end-user, but 
>may, in the course
>of its operations, provide internet access and/or resources to a 
>small number of other
>organizations. An LIR qualifies as a casual LIR if it delegates less 
>than 10% of its
>total address holdings or if it provides connectivity and number 
>resources to fewer
>than 5 external organizations. Such an organization is subject to 
>all LIR policies
>regarding record keeping, but shall be billed at the end-user rates 
>unless they
>inform AfriNIC in writing that they wish to be treated as a full LIR.
>Full LIR -- An organization which delegates number resources to 
>external organizations,
>but which does not qualify, or, has elected not to qualify as a Casual LIR.
>I believe this gives us a sufficiently black and white definition 
>for consistent
>application of policy while still allowing for the type of 
>utilization you have
>described above.

If the proposal mentions "billed at the end-user rates" it will not 
gain approval.  That could be done outside the PDP if the fees are a 
concern.  The above expand the categories from two to three.  The 
categories might end up creating problems instead of solving them.

I would like to identify what the community considers as barriers and 
then proceed from there.

>You kind of need a definition here of end-user and end-site, since 
>they are referenced in regard to reassignments.

I am waiting for the PDWG Chairs to respond to my two requests before 
working on reassignments and others issues in the proposal.

S. Moonesamy

More information about the RPD mailing list