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

Badru Ntege ntegeb at
Mon Jun 24 12:40:38 UTC 2013


Though not in support of policy let me see how we can come to an alternative position.   This is in my individual capacity.  

On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:26 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 growing, 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 which are severely limited in environments using Network Address Translation (NAT), we believe that it is important that HEIs desirous of public address space should have the ability to migrate away from NAT. Such migration will 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 by detailing and simplifying the address justification criteria b) This proposal recognises HEIs as end users, and removes the confusion previously 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 of IPv6 by making the rollout of IPv6 a criterion for qualification under this 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 their campus. 
> 3.1) To qualify for address space, Higher Education Institutions will need to apply as end users and provide the following documentation:
> 3.1.1) Proof of Institution's registration/accreditation   3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered full time students 3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.

What happens if institution looses accreditation and how does Afrinic get to know ??  How do they get back the resources ??

> 3.2) This policy applies a ratio to a head count of campus users, where the number of campus users is calculated using a formula of full time students + full time employees + (part time students * 0.5)

Since all institutions register more students than physical occupancy capacity this number should be based on occupancy capacity.  How many students at any one time.  This will eliminate evening and students that attend 1 day in the week.   not sure where this was covered

> 3.3)  In addition to the documentation specified in clause 3.1, institutions will need to provide details of planned/current IPv6 roll-outs, including committed time frames for the roll-out of IPv6.

What accountability will be in place to ensure this is done and what are the consequences of non compliance ??

> 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 of the network, beyond just the core/server infrastructure.

comments above

> 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 is defined in 3.2).

See my comments.  Campus user definition is too wide needs to be narrowed down precisely.

> 3.6) While 3.5 defines a minimum accepted ratio for which the justification 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 be specious or fraudulent in nature.

too subjective 

> 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 academic discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the time of application.

This is a very scary point.   I would suggest to drop this clause completely.

> 3.10) Since any HEI that has a large base of registered students and full 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 the 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 calculation of head count to which the address ratio calculation is applied.  Modified 3.5 to change the ratio from 1:3 to 1:5 as per requests from the RPD list. Added 3.6 to allow for allocations larger than the de-facto 1:5 ratio upon submission of additional documentation, while maintaining the need for minimal justification if the ratio applied for did not exceed the 1:5 mark.
> Version 2 - Added point 3.7 to allow for smaller applications.  Renumbered 3.8 -> 3.10 (from 3.7 -> 3.9). Replaced the word "academic" with the term "Higher Education Institutions" where appropriate to make the policy more consistent 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list