[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Chris,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to Afrinic mission which is to serve the African region equitably and equally. I would like to request to Afrinic to provide the current IPV4 allow to all African Universities regionally.  My worry is Afrinic give all IPv4 remaining  to the same Universities and when other will came they will be not IPv4 and they will raised the question of equally distribution of IP in the education sectors in Africa and they will be frustrated. 
> 
> Speaking as able self (ofcourse not as co-chair as handing-over has not happened :)
> 
> I identify your fear, however i believe that we have 2 scenarios here:
> 
> First Scenario
> A university who already have resources and want to request for more based on the new policy.
> For this customer, i believe a justification of use of the resources they currently have will be required before such new request will be considered by AFRINIC officials (if this is not the case, then i wish to be clarified on what is). Also it will be good to check whether the resource they initially have did not indeed meet their ratio needs as per the new policy.

In my opinion, they should be able to get an amount of IPv4 addresses that when combined with their current holdings would bring them in line with the current policy based strictly on the justification required by this policy. I don't see any reason that an institution that adopted IP early should be disadvantaged relative to this policy by requiring documented full utilization of their existing block prior to application under this policy.

I do not believe that an institution should be able to apply under this policy and receive a full allocation under this policy in addition to the resources that they already have.

In case I am not clear, I will provide two examples.

Let's say an institution with 12,000 students already has a /20 of IPv4 space (4096 addresses). Under this policy, they would be entitled to a /16. In such a case, I believe it makes the most sense to give them the /16 because a /17+ a /20 would not add up to the /16 which they can justify under this policy. Said institution should be encouraged (though not required) to renumber into the new block and return the /20 for use by other institutions.

On the other hand, let us consider an institution with the same 12,000 students which already has a /17. In this case, they should only be issued an additional /17 because that would bring them to the total /16 that they qualify for under this policy.

I think this is the most fair approach possible under this policy.

> Second Scenario
> A university who is just applying for resource for the first time:
> This is where the advantage of the new policy will be most applicable and yes i agree that some institutions in some countries may be fast enough to put in their requests which could make the IP space more prominent in one region than the other....perhaps it may be worth checking how some level of fairness in distribution of the resource across the continent can be achieved. However i think we still have to consider that you won't deny an institution assignment just because there has been several request from the particular region, especially if the institution meets the requirement for assignment. 

I believe that the free pool in the AfriNIC registry is actually large enough that only the institutions that are most asleep at the wheel can possibly fail to obtain their fair share under this policy.

> Perhaps its time for each country rep to do their homework with their respective institutions ;)

Indeed. I applaud Andrew's intent to reach out to various NRENs and encourage anyone connected to educational institutions in the region to make those institutions aware of this policy change.

Owen

> 
> Kind Regards
> - 
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Alan Barrett wrote:
> The following policy proposals acheieved rough consensus [...]
> 
> * Academic IPv4 Allocation
>  AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02
>  <http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation-afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-02-under-discussion>
> 
> I am sorry, I forgot to mention some changes.
> 
> 1. The staff analysis pointed out that the proposal used
>   two terms "Academic Institution" and "Higher Education
>   Institution".  The proposal will be modified to use a single
>   term consistently.
> 
> 2. Some people at the meeting said that some organisations might
>   not want as many IPv4 addresses as are allowed by this
>   proposal.  The proposal will be modified to make it clear that
>   an organisation may apply for fewer addresses than the 5:1
>   ratio would allow.
> 
> Consensus at the meeting was that the proposal, duly modified to address the above two points, should go to last call.
> 
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards
> Christian Bope Domilongo
> Gtalk : christianbope at gmail.com
> Msn : christianbope at hotmail.com
> Skype : christian.bope
> Phone : +243993005258
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130621/8ff4503e/attachment.html>