Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
jacksonmuthi at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 10:08:09 UTC 2013
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, McTim wrote:
>>> 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.
>> This is the key that we should focus on IMHO.
>> Why do they struggle and what can we do to help them!!??
> Thanks, that's a nice lead-in to my comments.
> I neither support nor oppose this policy proposal.
> Reasons not to oppose:
> 1. The total number of IPv4 addresses assigned under this proposal would
> be similar to the total number assigned under a requirement for
> detailed network plans, if not immediately, then in the future as
> academic institutions improve their network infrastructure.
> 2. This policy proposal would reduce the paperwork for both the
> applicant and the AFRINIC staff, while still allowing a reasonable
> total number of IPv4 addresses to be allocated.
> Reasons not to support:
> 3. I think that the same policy should apply to everybody; I don't
> like different rules for different types of organisations.
> 4. I think that academic institutions should be able to get the IPv4
> address space that they need by following the same application
> process as anybody else, including demonstrating a need for the
> 5. I think that a detailed network plan, including estimates of number
> of concurrent users of wireless networks, should be sufficient
> to demonstrate a need for the space. There should be no need for
> a formula involving the number of students.
> 6. If the AFRINIC staff reject network plans, then it should usually
> be for one of these reasons:
> a) the plan has insufficient detail;
> b) the plan does not support the number of addresses in the
> c) the plan appears to be fraudulent.
> It should not be for these reasons:
> d) AFRINIC staff demand an unrealistic level of detail;
> e) AFRINIC staff do not understand the plan, or do not understand
> the technology used in the network.
> The introduction to proposal AFPUB-2013-GEN-001 suggests that
> (d) and (e) are being used as reasons to reject applications,
> and if this is the case then I think that should be addressed by
> changes in internal AFRINIC procedures, and by staff training,
> not by changes in policy.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
This analysis is very good Allan.
Author sometimes mention those (d) and (e) as CHIEF motivation but it
look like that is not recent case.
I like all your analysis both for and aganst and they should be considered.
More information about the RPD