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

[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Fri Feb 8 14:08:32 UTC 2013

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM, ALAIN AINA <aalain at> wrote:

> I have a suggestion:
> Internet penetration in AFRICA is low and governments have strategies.
> Could we  just  distribute the  v4 pool to the  economies served by
> AFRINIC? We may work out a formula to make this  a bit fair.
> And so who will the economies those that will now distribute to the
locals; say we call them National Internet Registries (NIR)

I guess this is one of secret working group efforts....what a nice joke!


> So when Academic networks  need, they can get from there like others
> entities ( governments, businesses, telcos......)
> This could be a good enabler  to make the changes and local needs are best
> assessed locally
> --Alain
> I work in a public university (which in most sub-saharan countries) would
> take  over 80% of the total University Student enrollments in a given
> country. I can tell you for sure that the the No. of PCs in a Public
> University in a Sub-saharan economy has more to do with the ICT Investment
> ratios rather than student numbers. In other words what % of the University
> budget is going into ICT development per year - which translates better to
> the No. of Labs, IP Devices expected.  Perhaps you may want to review your
> policy in this light.
> This is the kind of thinking that I was referring to when I mentioned to
> Nii that I don't see the point in using equipment poverty as a reason to
> preserve address poverty. I agree that both issues need to be addressed.
> AfriNIC cannot solve the equipment issue, at least not completely or
> directly, but can solve the address issue. Further, I don't believe this
> policy would force a university to apply under the ratio criteria.
> Universities that wanted to could still apply under the existing policy and
> get less space if they had some reason and desire to do so.
> Another point regards the fact that in recent years, Higher Educational
> Institutions  have the trend of acquiring IPs through their Educational
> Networks e.g. TENET in  SA, KENET in Kenya, etc.   This trend is being
> picked up in West Africa and other parts of Africa (e.g.Madagascar).  And
> So in future, less and and less individual universities may be applying
> directly to AfriNIC for space.  This should however not stop the policy  -
> since the same policy would still be useful in informing the Educational
> Networks on how to approximate IP resource capacities in order to
> subsequently request from AfriNIC.
> IMHO, that's an unfortunate trend that probably indicates that getting
> space from AfriNIC directly either is, or is perceived to be more difficult
> than it should be.
> Finally, with the continued use of NAT - African Universities  tend to
> have a bigger problem of announcing their allocated space than perhaps the
> problem of getting them from AfriNIC :-).  I believe there is  a policy
> requirement that one should announce a % of their IP space within a given
> time frame but not sure if this is monitored and/or if there are examples
> of consequences for not doing this.
> IMHO, we should discourage the use of NAT in universities where feasible.
> NAT is contrary to good security practices and contrary to the principles
> of a free and open internet.
> On other matters that have been discussed:
> *Policy vs Operational Issues: I agree we need to be careful not to use an
> IP resource policy to address Operational Issues.  If AfrinIC staff and
> management are taking too long on processing IP resource request, there
> should be channels to address this e.g. by ensuring AfriNIC reviews or
> publishes its Service Charter/SLA committement to its membership.
> Agreed. I think this policy proposal is intended to resolve a policy issue
> where AfriNIC staff in its strict application of current policy is making
> university assignments and allocations unnecessarily difficult. I don't
> think it is intended to directly address timeliness or other operational
> concerns. Admittedly, a simplified streamlined policy for allocations and
> assignments is likely to result in an improvement in response times, but I
> don't think that is a primary intent of the policy so much as a beneficial
> second order effect.
> *Inter RIR IPv4 Transfers:
> I did agree with the message that hording IPv4 space in the face of
> emerging IPv6 space is like holding onto a losing stock.    A time is fast
> approaching when Africa will be boasting of having millions of IPv4 space
> that is not useful to anyone.  But this reality should trigger us to come
> up with strategies of increasing usage as opposed to strategies of
> "selling"  or liquidating the stock.
> I think this policy is intended to create increased usage and more
> effective distribution to entities that should be using the addresses (even
> if they lack the financial resources to take full advantage at the moment).
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at


*Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
Mobile: +2348035233535
**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list