[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Jackson,

I really believe that you have misunderstood this policy.

Let me give you some examples comparing certain South African universities
to West African Universities to illustrate just how much this helps
Universities outside of South Africa is comparison to those inside South
Africa.

Example one:

A particular South African institution that has a /15 worth of space
allocated by AfriNIC right now + a /16 worth of legacy space.

The current institution has a 95% utilisation of assigned space across
their network infrastructure and their wifi.

Now, let us for argument sake exclude the legacy space from the evaluation
numbers (since there is precedent to do that).

The institution has a combined 35 thousand students and staff registered.
Under the policy their maximum allocation would be 35000 * 5 IP addresses,
or 175000 addresses, which equates to a /15 + practically speaking a /17
if we round down.  Since they already have a /15, they would qualify for
only an additional /17 under this policy if we are going the round down
route.  This /17 would cost them an additional $3750 in application fees
as well.  Their annual fee would not change since they would still be
within the medium category as defined by the fee schedule.  Since they
already paid the application fee for the first /15, they also already paid
approx. $4500 for that, so total cost of getting to the maximum addresses
would have been $8250 approx. NOTE: Because of the universities current
utilisation of space, they could fairly easily justify applying for an
additional /16 WITHOUT this policy and the same fees.

Now, let us look at another institution in Nigeria as a hypothetical
example.  Let us say that our hypothetical university has 50 thousand
students (entirely possible).  Let us also assume that this institution is
currently running entirely network address translated behind a single /24
IP block that is assigned by their upstream provider.  The institution is
in the process of planning a wifi deployment on their campus as well as
infrastructure expansion, but since the equipment has not yet arrived,
they have no case to justify the application, however they do know they
WILL need the space going forward.  This institution would qualify for
50000 * 5 addresses under the new policy, which they would *NOT* have
qualified for without it.  This equates to 250,000 addresses, or 3.8 /16s
approximately.  If we assume round down, they would qualify for an instant
/15 and a /16.  Since this would be a single application under the fee
structure with academic discount applied, the cost of the application
would be $3750.  (The same amount that the first institution would pay for
an additional /17, and less than half what the above institution has paid
for their total space).

At this point, the western african institution is in a *FAR* better
position than the southern african institution who already has space, as
they can gain far more from this policy than the south african
institution.  If we also include legacy space into the applications
(though as I said, this could be argued, since there is strong precedent
against this), the South African institution would qualify for *NO* more
space under this policy.

Bottom line, those who already have space as is the case of large numbers
of the South African institutions benefit *FAR* less from this policy than
those who currently have none, both in the financial sense and in the
actual allocation of the remaining pool.

With regards to the usage of IPv4.  Jackson, the African IPv4 pool is
limited, we know this.  There is also currently *NO* policy in place that
prevents the usage of the space off the continent by an African registered
entity with African operations.  The only policy that prevents this is the
soft landing policy and that is not in effect yet.  As such, under current
policy it could be argued, and we'd have a hard time arguing against this,
that a chinese operator who setup a small operation in South Africa and
then applied a HUGE amount of space to use in both their South African
operations and their Chinese operations, with 80% of the space being used
off continent, could still get the space (and it would be very hard to
deny it if they contested it because of currently in place policies, which
CANNOT be changed for at least another 6 months).  Bottom line, our space
can be taken by foreign entities as things currently stand, and it will be
as they cannot get more space.  This means, you have a choice, the space
either stays on the African continent (which it will under this policy),
or it flows off this continent and no African benefits from it.

Further to what I have said above, I remind you that other than yourself
and one other, the others who have objected to this list already did so in
a room in Zambia where the policy was passed with an over 90% consensus.
Hence, I argue that unless a significant number of people on this list
object who were not part of the original consensus vote, or who have
changed their votes from support to lack thereof, preventing this policy
passing would be contrary to the demonstrated will of the community.

Thanks

Andrew


On 2013/06/23 11:58 AM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:

>I am sorry my emotion overtake substance of discussion. It show
>passion I have as I oppose the policy.
>
>Sorry Andre et Sunday.
>
>Now I grow up and back to point:
>
>One. I insist that burning our IP quickly to encourage fast IPV6
>deployment is no good idea. What happened when IPV6 takes much long
>time period globally for deployment? Like 20 to 30 years from this
>point? Internet and connection will be depend on IPV4 which now is
>over and difficult (expensive) to get from broker and market.
>
>Effect? Expensive to deploy and deliver internet.
>Effect? Expense move to consumer.
>Effect? Cost of communication go higher AGAIN.
>
>Two. I insist South Afrika Universities (and even Nigeria ones) are in
>an advantage because of critical masses in both money and numbers.
>Those two country will consume entire IPV4 when they want under this
>policy. This took us back to my point one when others universities now
>want to connect and even want IPV6 which now still depend on IPv4 to
>double stack because IPV6 dont communcate to IPV4 without IPV4. Expert
>correct me here.
>
>This proposal I strongly OPPOSE.
>Let university be treat like other consumer of Afrinic and provide
>accountability of their requirement.
>It can b interesting when I see data of how many IP has South afrikan
>university compare with other university in afrika.
>
>My 2 cent.
>
>Jack
>
>
>On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Emile Milandou <emilemilan at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jackson Muthili
>><jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> Let us take a slow steady transition not Africa haters Sunday and
>>> Andrew who want to ditch their people into hole and burn continents
>>> IPV4.
>>
>>
>> I like your firsts paragraph's comment, but I disagreed totaly with your
>> last one. The debate should remain focussed on the idea behind the
>>proposal
>> but not pointing the authors.
>>
>> Please keep personnal what you think about people. I am sure that I am
>>not
>> the only one thinking that such attitudes should not be allowed on RPD
>>list,
>> they should merely be reprimanded.
>>
>> Rgds,
>> Emile
>_______________________________________________
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at afrinic.net
>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd