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

[Andrew Alston]

Since we're having a lot of discussion about turn around times and how
easy/hard it is to get space from AfriNIC, I figured I'd post some
statistics gathered from the AfriNIC site which could feed into this
discussion.  Just how busy is AfriNIC, and is it a human resource problem
that is resulting in such huge delays or is the analysis of the documents
simply so invasive and the process so complicated that the delays and
problems creep in?  To answer that question, we need to take a close look at
what AfriNIC has claimed about its staff numbers, and then look at the
allocation rates.

If I recall, AfriNIC has said it has 5 staff members in R&S, if we calculate
that out, we come out an average of 800 working man hours a month based on
160 hours a month per person (calculated on 4 weeks a month, 8 hours a day).

At the current allocation rates on ASN's, IP space and new membership
applications, that calculates out as follows:

 49 man hours per IP application (194 applications, 16.16 applications on
average per month)
68 man hours per member application (141 applications, 11.75 per month
average)
66 man hours per ASN application (145 applications, 12.08 per month average)
115 man hours per IPv6 application (83 total applications, 6.08 per month
average)

Or, if we add it all up, 563 total applications among those 4 categories,
averaging out at 46.91 applications per month, or 17 man hours per
application.  Even if we work on only 3 dedicated members for R&S, this
still averages out at an average of 10.23 man hours per application.

I leave it up to the list to judge if it's the process, human resource issue
or other issue that's causing these kinda numbers....

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of
Nii Narku Quaynor
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:47 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Guy Antony Halse; rpd
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft
(AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)

Hi Owen 

On Feb 5, 2013, at 22:49, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Nii,
> 
> [..]
> 
> In my opinion, the question is not whether or how people design networks
or document them.
> 
> The question is how much effort should AfriNIC staff be required to put
into reviewing a request from a university? How much scrutiny do we need to
apply to such requests? Are there rules of thumb that can be used to provide
guidance to the staff which will facilitate a simplified application process
with greater fairness and better outcomes for all with less labor required
on both sides?
> 
Same uniform effort for university as to serve every other member. Perhaps
requests should be smarter and the scrutiny more efficient but this seems an
operational matter and not in realm of policy

If you believe application process has been unfair send information to CEO
attention 

> I believe that the amount of effort being expended on both sides of this
equation (which translates into costs as well) is excessive compared to the
task at hand based on documentation provided by both AfriNIC staff and
others throughout this thread and in other discussions I've had with people.
> 
I'll prefer to leave afrinic management to do this job more efficiently and
universities to submit same information for service as any other member

> Further, I believe that Universities and other institutions of learning in
the region represent the best hope for advancing various goals of
development in the region. ICT investment and internet capabilities are huge
levers for education, if applied properly. As such, I believe it is strongly
in the best interests of the region to maximize the ease of implementing ICT
in educational institutions and facilitating student use of ICT and internet
capabilities.
> 
Agree but this is not the issue; evidence shows afrinic supports ICT in
educational institutions
> I believe that the discussion thus far has well established that a fully
developed ICT infrastructure with students that are not financially or
otherwise disadvantaged in their ability to possess devices can readily
justify a rule of thumb around 5:1 IPv4 addresses per student or more. This
includes not only the student devices, but also addresses for faculty,
staff, university owned equipment, network infrastructure, etc. As such, I
believe providing a policy which allows a University to apply to AfriNIC and
use their student count with an agreed upon ratio provides a good rule of
thumb which can allow a simplified justification process while still
preventing abuse. AfriNIC expends less resources reviewing the request. The
university spends less time going back and forth with AfriNIC staff over the
justification. It's better for everyone.
> 
Afrinic would not be an impediment to a university request for a 10:1
network. University could be developing tools to make everyone's situation
better instead of avoiding the work altogether 
> Are there universities that don't need such a large ratio just yet? Sure
there are. Especially in the region. However, I would argue that it is far
better if such universities are allowed to get the address space even if
they can't use it today because it will support and potentially encourage
them to develop better student ICT facilities which will improve the quality
of their educational experience.
> 

Are we encouraging hoarding ? 

Universities in Africa are not starved of address space. One recalls afrinic
and AAU had a program with funding for universities to access address space
for free and we also know the uptake of that arrangement 

...there is ipv6 that universities may use so they can chose what ratio they
wish
> I do not understand the argument in favor of preserving address poverty
simply because other forms of poverty prevent taking full advantage of
address wealth at the moment. Let us, instead, first resolve address poverty
because it is easy to do so. Then we can continue to work on the other
forms.
> 
I have not made that argument. 

Afrinic would not turn away member requests. I don't see address rich or
poor as appropriate description 

One only wants to administer resources going into real networks in Africa

A posture is that the universities should set example and do the requests
clearly and cheaper rather than create special cases by policy

Requests from government, university and private sector members should be
processed uniformly 

Perhaps different fees or priority processing might be fair for universities
but I am not convinced of the need for this policy
> Owen
> 


_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd