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

Saul Stein saul at
Tue Jun 25 06:40:21 UTC 2013


For some reason I sent this yesterday, but it never made it to the list.


There is a lot of noise about this - great to see interest and debate.


What I find interesting is the reason and concern.  My understanding is that
this policy doesn't allow any resource to any organisation that isn't
entitled it - it simply makes things easier to get the resource.


Any institution is allowed any amount of resources so long as they can
justify the use. HI's struggle to do this and this policy makes it easier
for them.


That is all - the resources will get used up either way.


Therefore in order to help the His get more space more easily we need to
support this as I do!





From: rpd-bounces at <mailto:rpd-bounces at>
[mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: 24 June 2013 02:42 PM
To: Badru Ntege
Cc: rpd
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy


Hi Badru,


I believe that the modified version still needs to go to last call as per
the process and then the last call should be followed as per the process.


We have a process, let us use it.





From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb at <mailto:ntegeb at> >
Date: Monday 24 June 2013 2:40 PM
To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at
<mailto:alston.networks at> >
Cc: rpd <rpd at <mailto:rpd at> >
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy




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
<mailto: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.






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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


rpd mailing list
rpd at <mailto:rpd at>


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

More information about the RPD mailing list