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

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

Douglas Onyango ondouglas at
Sun Feb 10 12:21:18 UTC 2013

Sorry I am late to this party, but I would like to voice my principle
objection to this policy because it reads more like an
operational/implementation document rather than a policy. My feeling
is that inconsistent treatment of resource applications is at the
centre of this policy. If I am right then I would posit that this is
not the first time we see some attempt to resolve administrative
issues with policy, so for me it would be important to put in
place/fix a mechanism for AfriNIc and the community to resolve these
kind of issues.

More specifically 3.1 of this policy:
>3.1) To qualify for address space, Academic institutions will need to apply as end users and provide the following >documentation:
>3.1.1) Proof of Institution's registration/accreditation
>3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered full time students
>3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.

I am averse to the idea of hardcoding requirements here as it will
constrain staff from doing any extra due dilligence --- applications
can refer them to #3.1 when probed :-). imagine how abused this
scripted process can be --- we should allow some discretion to staff –
unless offcourse we have a problem with the way they are  doing their
job, in which case we should try and fix that, only I am doubtful that
this would fall under the purview of the PDP

Also 3.5:
>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).
It would appear that from the thread 3:1 would be something members
see as pragmatic and are able to agree to, although some numbers have
been advanced to demonstrate a  5:1 situation. My take on this
particular discussion is that I would agree with the demonstrated 3:1
that most of the people on the list seem to lean toward, albeit, if we
accounted for the future growth of the Internet (stats by Andrew :-)),
you will agree that a 5:1 is wise as it would support scalability in
the near future. For this reason I would be in support of a 5:1. So I
feel the following would be a reasable compromise :-
1.	No minimum ratio
2.	> 3:1 screening begins
3.	5:1 is the max

More information about the RPD mailing list