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

McTim dogwallah at
Mon Jun 24 13:19:16 UTC 2013

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:26 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.

So the problem we are trying to solve is "avoid NATs and let
Universities get the space they need"

is that a good summary?  If so, I don't understand what in the current
policy restricts the Universities from eliminating NAT and getting the
addresses they need.  Clarification on this would be helpful in
removing my opposition.

> 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

This puts HEIs in a special category that allows them to get blocks
more easily than the rest of the community.  I don't think it fair to
allow one segment of the community to get special preference.

 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.

My position on this has been that while IPv6 adoption is a good thing,
it shouldn't be the place of the community to tell network operators
which protocol they MUST use.

> 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.

People don't use IP addresses, network interfaces do.

> 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.
> 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)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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).
> 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.
> 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.
> 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


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

More information about the RPD mailing list