Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions
viv.padayatchy at cybernaptics.mu
Fri Jun 21 15:43:21 UTC 2013
I would also like to add my opposition to this policy as I expressed it at
the AIS meeting in Zambia.
As far as I know, all academic institutions who have requested IP address
from Afrinic and have been able to justify, like any other applicants, have
been able to receive an allocation based on those needs.
Should the needs change with time, our existing allocation policies allow
for further allocation.
It seems to me that this policy only serves the purpose of accelerating the
burn up of afrinic V4 space.
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of
Sent: 21 June 2013 19:30
To: Maye Diop
Cc: Alan Barrett; rpd
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions
I agree with Maye. I do not understand the problem we are trying to solve
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.
"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.
>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Alston
>> <alston.networks at gmail.com>
>> > 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
>> > 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
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD