[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[McTim]

I agree with Maye.  I do not understand the problem we are trying to solve here.

I think that the current policies wrt Universities are already very
accommodating.  I don't think these institutions should be treated
with any more special status than they already have.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>