Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Mon Jun 24 11:56:44 UTC 2013

Hi Jackson,

I dispute that "we have more opposition than support".

I would ask, of the number of objections we have had on this list.

A.) How many people who are on this list were in the room at the meeting
in Zambia expressing opposition.
B.) If there are no extras in on this that were not in the room, or a
insignificant number in addition to those in the room, the consensus still
stands (unless people on this list that were in that room voted for and
not against, and have now changed stance).  I need to go through the list
of people I have that voted against in the room and then we can get an
actual view.  Because if the 5 or 6 people on the list that are now
objecting are the same people who were in the room objecting the first
time, when 95% of the room voted in favour, the status quo remains the

Emile, can you please clarify this?

Further more, I think its still pretty early days to comment on if we do
or don't have consensus, since the last call period I believe runs for 30
days and since the new draft has not officially been issued by the PDWG
chairs yet, this has not even begun yet.


On 2013/06/24 12:49 PM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:

>Now that new version come up and clear in this last call we have more
>opposition than support.
>The policy go back to discuss at next Afrinic meeting?
>Policy Chair please give us your expert advise.
>I still oppose strongly this policy to get above this stage. Because
>all community still need to understand implication.
>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Alston
><alston.networks at> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Please see the proposed modified version of the policy as requested by
>> community consensus at the Zambian PDP Meeting.
>> Thanks
>> Andrew
>> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>> Given that the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Africa are
>> and that Internet access within these Higher Education Institutions is
>> critical to the educational experience of students, it is necessary to
>> provide sufficient address space to these HEIs to allow them to function
>> effectively.  When we consider that such institutions are constantly
>> upgrading their Infrastructure and bandwidth to support technologies
>> are severely limited in environments using Network Address Translation
>> (NAT), we believe that it is important that HEIs desirous of public
>> space should have the ability to migrate away from NAT. Such migration
>> help promote technologies such as multicast and the convergence of
>>voice and
>> data networks, which will in turn drive down the costs within such
>> institutions.
>> By promoting the elimination of NATs, this proposal will also assist
>>HEIs in
>> their migration to IPv6, and in fact, to qualify under this proposal,
>> dual-stack and/or rollout of IPv6 at the qualifying institution is
>> mandatory.
>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
>> a) This proposal will simplify the allocation of address space to HEIs
>> detailing and simplifying the address justification criteria b) This
>> proposal recognises HEIs as end users, and removes the confusion
>> seen where arguments have occurred as to the status of the applying
>> institution. c) This proposal helps to reduce the dependence of HEIs on
>> NATs, and is in line with AfriNIC's own policy of not promoting the
>>usage of
>> such translation mechanisms.. d) This proposal encourages the adoption
>> IPv6 by making the rollout of IPv6 a criterion for qualification under
>> proposal.
>> 3) Proposal
>> Higher Education Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC
>> based on the sum of the number of registered students and employees on
>> campus.
>> 3.1) To qualify for address space, Higher Education Institutions will
>> to apply as end users and provide the following documentation:
>> 3.1.1) Proof of Institution's registration/accreditation   3.1.2) Proof
>> the number of registered full time students 3.1.3) Proof of staff head
>> count.
>> 3.2) This policy applies a ratio to a head count of campus users, where
>> number of campus users is calculated using a formula of full time
>>students +
>> full time employees + (part time students * 0.5)
>> 3.3)  In addition to the documentation specified in clause 3.1,
>> will need to provide details of planned/current IPv6 roll-outs,
>> committed time frames for the roll-out of IPv6.
>> 3.4) For the purposes of this policy, the roll-out of IPv6 can only be
>> considered to be a true IPv6 roll-out, if IPv6 is extended to the edge
>> the network, beyond just the core/server infrastructure.
>> 3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources
>>at a
>> ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user, where campus user
>> defined in 3.2).
>> 3.6) While 3.5 defines a minimum accepted ratio for which the
>> is clearly defined in 3.1, applications based on a ratio as high as 10:1
>> shall be given due consideration and should be approved unless the
>> justification for such increased ratio is believed by AfriNIC staff to
>> specious or fraudulent in nature.
>> 3.7) While 3.5 defines a minimum ratio for which institutions shall be
>> eligible, where an institution believes that it requires less space than
>> defined by this ratio, a ratio of less than the
>> default specified in 3.5 may be requested.
>> 3.8) HEIs will be classified as End Users under this policy, on
>>provision of
>> a duly authorised letter from the institution management stating that
>> address space allocated will not be used outside of the campus/academic
>> environment.
>> 3.9) HEIs qualifying under this proposal will qualify for the same
>> discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the time of
>> application.
>> 3.10) Since any HEI that has a large base of registered students and
>> time staff, has to, by the very nature of their function, have
>>equipment on
>> campus, this policy dispenses for the need for a HEI to provide detailed
>> proof of equipment and infrastructure.
>> Revision History (For all but the first draft)
>> Version 1 ­ Added 3.1.3 to include justification of employee count.
>>Added a
>> new point 3.2 and 3.4, meaning that sequential numbering changed, where
>> original 3.2 became 3.3, 3.4 became 3.5, 3.6 was a new point, meaning
>> original 3.6 -> 3.8 became 3.7 -> 3.9. Added 3.2 to define the
>> of head count to which the address ratio calculation is applied.
>> 3.5 to change the ratio from 1:3 to 1:5 as per requests from the RPD
>> Added 3.6 to allow for allocations larger than the de-facto 1:5 ratio
>> submission of additional documentation, while maintaining the need for
>> minimal justification if the ratio applied for did not exceed the 1:5
>> Version 2 - Added point 3.7 to allow for smaller applications.
>> 3.8 -> 3.10 (from 3.7 -> 3.9). Replaced the word "academic" with the
>> "Higher Education Institutions" where appropriate to make the policy
>> consistent
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list