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

[Nii Narku Quaynor]

On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:02, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 14:46 , Nii Narku Quaynor <quaynor at ghana.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> For general improvement, I would agree. OTOH...
> 
This to me is the issue to focus so please state what the other hand is and how it will make afrinic better or worse
>> If you believe application process has been unfair send information to CEO attention 
>> 
> 
> I don't know. I don't have first hand knowledge here.

Then let alone. Second hand knowledge may mislead

> However, I do think, having been involved in the address planning and design of networks for several universities, that one can actually apply a rule-of-thumb about the size of IP block the university actually needs being pretty linearly related to the student count in most cases. IMHO, that ratio is very close to 5:1 in most of the developed world and that is why I have suggested it would be a good rule of thumb here as well.
> 
A Rule of Thumb may be an operational guide but only that *not* policy

Afrinic can give 10:1 to universities and only requests honest plan to use it. 

Would you share a reference to any policy based on a rule of thumb function of a population as you advocate at ARIN eg for universities
> If other applicants had such a rule-of-thumb available that would support simplified applications and greater objectivity while reducing processing time and effort, I would support applying those rules as well.
> 
All operators have rules of thumb in their workload so this is a pandoras box if one makes a policy based on broad ratios, quotas... 

Wait for the governments to come and take their own ratio to create a national IR then you might understand how problematic this box can be....especially in the new era of UN interests in IG. One only need point out that all African countries (ok, except ...) signed the ITR which the USA did not sign :(

All this will follow because you ask afrinic to have separate operation for universities and set a potentially  dangerous precedence 
> The bottom line is that we have here a proposed policy which can make life better for a significant subset of AfriNIC users without disadvantaging anyone. I see no downside.
> 
This proposal creates different technical processing paths for requests turning registration officers into pseudo lawyers interpreting volumes of policies like this one
>>> 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
> 
> Noted. I think it is fine if we agree to disagree on this point. We are both men of good faith and men of good faith will on occasion have differing opinions on the best course of action.
> 
Sorry. Same processing for all is better and fairer in building the institution and community 
>>> 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
> 
> But that support can be improved while simultaneously reducing AfriNIC costs.
> 
Is this a solution in search of a problem
>>> 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 
> 
> The proposed policy would not make AfriNIC any more of an impediment than it is today. It would make AfriNIC less of an impediment for any ratio up to and including 5:1.
> 
Hence what is the problem we are solving when a university can get any ratio whenever they want now
>>> 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 ? 
> 
> I would not call it hoarding in this case. In fact, one could argue that what is hoarding is the AfriNIC free pool is being hoarded with overzealous attempts to make it last significantly longer than IPv4 may be relevant.
> 
Those who argue such may be maligning an RIR irresponsibly. Afrinic is not hoarding any resources however there may be some applicants or their consultants who don't want to follow procedures so attempt to make policy to not have to do whats required

Others may also argue that the ipv4 looting brigade is coming for what's  meant for African networks. If we can't monetize the African ipv4 addresses then lets give them out even if don't quite need it yet

>> 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 
> 
> I can only go based on what has been stated in the discussion by various representatives of Universities. You are the only one so far that has said it is not hard for universities to get space from AfriNIC. All of the other university representatives that have said anything on the subject have discussed various difficulties.
> 
I am perhaps the first because I was part of those who worked with AAU and the AfREN community to put a program in place to help universities access Afrinic resources

>> 
>> ...there is ipv6 that universities may use so they can chose what ratio they wish
> 
> You and I both know that host ratios are irrelevant in IPv6 and that only network counts matter.
> 
> Obviously I encourage universities to implement and train IPv6 as well.
> 
So why the excitement on ipv4 addresses and the proposed population based allocation policy when existing network plan based policies are working
>>> 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. 
> 
> Than I have misunderstood some of your earlier statements.
> 
I believe the numbers should be  readily available to the region as intended but not for direct commercial exchange out of Africa 
>> Afrinic would not turn away member requests. I don't see address rich or poor as appropriate description 
> 
> That is not what other members have said earlier in this discussion.
> 
>> One only wants to administer resources going into real networks in Africa
> 
> Actually, at this point, because of the leverage provided by ICT training in universities, I believe that somewhat speculative address issuance in order to encourage ICT development at universities is actually warranted.
> 
The universities can get all the addresses they need just as other members
>> A posture is that the universities should set example and do the requests clearly and cheaper rather than create special cases by policy
> 
> I can respect that position, but I do not agree with it.
> 
You mean universities should set a bad example;-) No

One would try improving the operational mechanisms initially

Cheers
Nii
> Owen
>