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

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Tue Jun 25 10:08:09 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at> 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
>    space.
> 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
>         application;
>      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

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 mailing list