[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[Maye Diop]

Dear All,
I do apolidize for my broken english but I would like to raise the point
that perhaps we need to take time to look at carefully this policy which,
in my opinion will provide provision for seggregation on Afrinic region and
is dangerous for afrinic survival.
1- Why couldn t we use the current policies? What is the issues?
2- By analysing all these problems, is there another way to raise them by
improving current policies?
3- If we decided to move forward with this new policy, how could we be sure
by serving academic world that i) afrinic will be able to perform  in the
future as regional organisation ii) the whole region specically west, north
and central regions will be able to get IPv4 addresses next coming years
for business and academy.
Because :
By providing  /8 IPv4 to the universities for half of the price and without
any policy that prevent to take them back if they are not used, how
financial afrinic resources which are comlng essentially from these ipv4
space could sustain for next coming years. Our perspectives are essentially
coming from telco and mobile internet.
The fact is at this stage of v6 transition where only 10% of internet
content are in v6 and most of our isp's and telco do not want to move now
to v6 because of cost, we know that v4 will be used for next 5 years then
how urge is it for this new policy?

But if we feel that these addresses are not safe in Afrinic because it
serves international organisations who justify activities in the region and
then we do have to  look for a new safebox to save our resources in some
academic institution, why don t we just transfert afrinic business to these
institution?

We do aggreed as a group to support Uniforum for running. africa in an
inclusive manner. Then we could continue to work as a multistakeholders
group for whole africa interest.

All my best
Le 21 juin 2013 15:26, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> a écrit :

> I think it is reasonable for AfriNIC staff to interpret the policy as
> allowing round-up
> of the justification to the next bit boundary to facilitate aggregation. I
> suggest that
> is an operational interpretation issue which should not effect the last
> call status.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > If they chose to round it up, and it went above the 5 times multiplier,
> > more documentation would be required as stated in the policy.
> >
> > If they chose to round it down, it would be within the multiplier and no
> > more documentation would be required.
> >
> > If they choose to hit the closest bit boundary to the nearest /24, again
> > no more documentation would be required but deaggregation would occur as
> a
> > result.
> >
> > Sunday and I have discussed this and believe that this is the best way
> > forward, as to introduce a change in the policy now would result in it no
> > longer being able to enter final call and that would not be in the
> > interests of the community considering the overwhelming consensus the
> > community gave the policy yesterday.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > On 2013/06/21 10:38 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
> >>> So, let us look at an institution that has 20 thousand combined
> >>> staff and students, and is already sitting on a /16 worth of
> >>> space.
> >>>
> >>> The combined allocation they would qualify for under this policy
> >>> is 20 * 5 = 100k IP addresses.
> >>
> >> Would that be rounded up to a /15 (131072 addresses, equivalent
> >> to using a multiplier of about 6.55:1 instead of 5:1), or rounded
> >> down to a /16 (65536 addresses, equivalent to using a multiplier
> >> of about 3.27:1), or a /16 plus a /17 (98304 addresses, equivalent
> >> to a multiplier of 4.91:1), or something else agreed between the
> >> applicant and AFRINIC?
> >>
> >> My reading of the proposal is that the applicant could choose any
> >> multiplier between 0 and 10, with multipliers less than or equal
> >> to 5 being almost automatically accepted by AFRINIC, but with
> >> larger multipliers requiring more justification.
> >>
> >> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rpd mailing list
> >> rpd at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130621/75778403/attachment.html>