Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 61
Louis Marais
maraisl at ufs.ac.za
Wed Jun 26 12:49:19 UTC 2013
Hi,
I support the following draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03. I feel it is
in the best interest of the African community. After reading all of the
comments I still believe it to be a good policy.
Louis
>>> <rpd-request at afrinic.net> 2013-06-26 02:23 PM >>>
Send rpd mailing list submissions to
rpd at afrinic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request at afrinic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner at afrinic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Commencement of the last call (Dewole Ajao)
2. Re: Commencement of the last call (Dewole Ajao)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:56:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <1629415906.7.1372247794363.JavaMail.root at forum.org.ng>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Dewole Ajao < dewole at forum.org.ng >
wrote:
A few constructive modifications to this policy have been suggested and
as a PDP newbie, I'm interested in seeing the most recent revision of
the draft as the website still carries DRAFT-02.
Your observation is actually valid and we have notified the site Admin
to make the necessary update. Hopefully it will be done today.
Nevertheless you can find the DRAFT-03 here:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003332.html
Ack. Thanks.
Dewole.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/0324d3f5/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:22:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <278662006.277.1372249356304.JavaMail.root at forum.org.ng>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Andrew,
The concern about opposing definitions of "enough addresses for the
projected rollout" can be resolved within the policy itself so it
doesn't become a burden for Afrinic staff in future. Since the policy
will allow for "startup allocation" without infrastructure on ground,
there wouldn't be the issue of slow starters getting nothing; only
non-starters will get nothing.
Personal suggestion for startup allocation is 40-50%. I think half is a
good figure because
1. It (almost) halves the chances that a large institution that is
lackadaisical about rollout will sit on address space that could have
beeen assigned to others (thus protecting the smaller/poorer).
2. It provides a substantial amount (about half) of the resources
needed for any institution that is serious about deployment to start
with (thus still serving the larger/richer). A larger institution that
can justify immediate 100% deployment will still get it based on
existing justification policy, right?
Dewole.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at gmail.com>
To: "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at forum.org.ng>
Cc: "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com>, "Maye Diop" <mayediop at gmail.com>,
"rpd" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:30:09 PM
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
Hi Dewole,
My problem with this is that this again disadvantages the institutions
who are rolling out slowly, and could end up in a situation where they
get none, and does nothing to address the imbalance of space where the
poorer institutions are still hugely disadvantaged in the fact that they
have to apply multiple times to get to the same level as their
counterparts. Also "enough addresses for the projected rollout" becomes
a point of contention and debate with AfriNIC staff, because once again
the issue of concurrency rears its head when you are attempting to
rollout wireless networks.
I remind this list that the original policy proposed a ratio of 3:1 and
it was at the request of this list and this community that we raised
that to a 5:1, indicating that the community on this list believed that
the 3:1 ratio was infact to low.
Andrew
From: Dewole Ajao < dewole at forum.org.ng >
Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 1:15 PM
To: Andrew Alston < alston.networks at gmail.com >
Cc: Walubengo J < jwalu at yahoo.com >, Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >,
rpd < rpd at afrinic.net >
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
A few constructive modifications to this policy have been suggested and
as a PDP newbie, I'm interested in seeing the most recent revision of
the draft as the website still carries DRAFT-02. Apologies for my
ignorance if it's already somewhere I'm not aware of.
In the past couple of hours, I have seen just one reasonable fear and I
believe it is easy to fix this.
The fear was:
* That the proposed policy will allow some institutions take up IPv4
addresses to the detriment of late-movers that are yet to request
allocations.
Suggested fix: Authors should revise the policy so that allocations are
based not solely on the number of students enrolled but also on a
reasonable phased plan for rollout (as per existing policy). Afrinic can
first allocate enough addresses for say Year 1 of projected rollout. If
institutions need more in subsequent years after rollout, they can
request more with evidence that 80% utilization has been reached.
Phasing the allocations can be likened to the use of small plates at an
all-you-can-eat-buffet; go eat then come back to the queue when you're
done. Everyone in the room (hopefully) gets to eat a portion.
I hope this is helpful so we can move forward.
Dewole.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Alston" < alston.networks at gmail.com >
To: "Walubengo J" < jwalu at yahoo.com >, "Maye Diop" < mayediop at gmail.com
>, "rpd" < rpd at afrinic.net >
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
Hi Walu,
Nice to see you on the list and joining our lively debate :)
> I hope this does not turn out to be a one-to-one match :-)
I hope that is not the case, I believe we should be debating this
policy on
technical merits and in the view to what is in the best interests of
the
entire continent.
> 1. The policy is not good since it seems to favour certain
orgarnizations
(academia) - the risk here being that soon or later, other specialized
organisations may come up with their own specialized policies as well.
Think of
Churches, Political Parties, Youth, Football groups etc :-)
I can understand this concern, however, it needs to be stated that any
such
policy would need to pass through the PDP as this one is. If the
community
found consensus for such things, then as a community organisation
AfriNIC
should not oppose it. That is what the policy process is there for, to
build policy that the community wants. However, if a specialised
organisation could not gain the consensus of the community such a
policy
would be rejected. This mitigates this concern in my mind since anyone
is
free to propose any policy and put it through the process.
> 2. The Policy is good in that it makes it easier for Universities to
quickly
get IP addresses - which is a good thing since Universities tend to be
the
safest custodian and best consumers of IP resources amongst all other
potential
organisations.
100% agreed.
> I also see Maye's point that it could be that Southern region (read
SA), East
African region (read Kenyan) & perhaps West Africa region (read
Nigerian)
Universities maybe the ones who may "rush" for these IP
> resources at the expense of the other regions(countries). I think it
is a
valid point and the most likely outcome of this policy.
I do not understand this point, at all. There has even been a South
African
institution on the list stating they would not need to take advantage
of it.
Those who have space have no real need of this policy and based on
emails I
have put forward earlier in this discussion, it is actually harder for
those
that have to qualify for large amounts of space under this policy.
However,
in Ethiopia there sits one HEI that I know of that has a single /30 for
the
entire University. This policy would allow for that to change, it would
give them the space they need. Those who do NOT have space, need it,
and
this policy makes it far easier for them to get it. The policy
significantly advantages those who currently have little or nothing,
and I
believe that that is in the best interests of the entire continent, as
it
creates a far more equal playing field and balances things removing the
historical advantage from those who already have resources.
Andrew
From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks at gmail.com >
To: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >; rpd < rpd at afrinic.net >
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
Thanks Maye,
I sent that privately but as I said in it, you are welcome to share my
concerns with the list.
I stand by what I have said there, that I do not understand your
motives,
and that I believe strongly that this policy is in the best interests
of the
African continent as a whole and that is what I fight for. And I hope
that
we are NOT seeing a divide such as what this is beginning to look like
Andrew
From: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >
Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:19 AM
To: rpd < rpd at afrinic.net >
Subject: Fwd: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks at gmail.com >
Date: 2013/6/26
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
To: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >
Sent off listÅ your decision to take it back to the list or notÅ .
; ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity;
Is this the REAL reason for your opposition? Not on technical grounds,
not
on financial grounds, not on any other grounds, but because you oppose
something that is not coming out of your own region? Even though we
have
shown and demonstrated that it will benefit your own region more than
the
Southern or Eastern regions? I am now openly asking you, is this a
geo-political issue or a language issue or a racial issue? Because if
that
is the case, I would be extremely saddened to find that Africa once
again
cannot work together because of prejudice based on location, ethnicity,
language, tribal association or any other.
I believe, strongly, that this policy is in the benefit of the
continent as
a whole, and I might point out, I actually spend VERY little time in
the
southern region these days, most of my work is with the commercials in
East
Africa, though I was involved in actively supporting and fighting for
the
IPv6 task force in Senegal, have presented in Ghana, have spent time in
Gambia, and have always demonstrated throughout my career that my focus
has
been Africa centric rather then South Africa centric.
However, your statements and your views come across to me, and others
who
have expressed this view to me, as being extremely guided by issues
that are
not actually related to the policy and I question those motives (and am
quite prepared to debate that on list if you so choose)
Andrew
2013/6/26 Alan Barrett < apb at cequrux.com >
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Badru Ntege wrote:
>> There is nothing stoping this institution now using the resources to
set up a
>> local for profit ISP, or even passing these resources to a third
party that
>> will take them off the continent.
>
> See the existing IPv4 allocation policy, AFPUB-2005-V4-001, section
9.5:
>
> " 9.5 Validity of an assignment
> "
> " Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria
> " on which the assignment was based are still in place and
> " the assignment is registered in the AFRINIC database. An
> " assignment is therefore invalid if it is not registered in the
> " database and if the purpose for which it was registered has
> " changed or no longer holds.
>
> An attempt to transfer of resources clearly invalidates the
assignment under
> clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001. I would argue that a mission change
on the
> part of the organisation (such as serving as a for-profit ISP), would
also
> invalidate the assignment under that clause.
>
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> < https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >
--
---------------------
Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.nethttps ://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
--
---------------------
Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.nethttps ://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
Hi Walu,
Nice to see you on the list and joining our lively debate :)
> I hope this does not turn out to be a one-to-one match :-)
I hope that is not the case, I believe we should be debating this
policy on technical merits and in the view to what is in the best
interests of the entire continent.
> 1. The policy is not good since it seems to favour certain
orgarnizations (academia) - the risk here being that soon or later,
other specialized organisations may come up with their own specialized
policies as well. Think of Churches, Political Parties, Youth, Football
groups etc :-)
I can understand this concern, however, it needs to be stated that any
such policy would need to pass through the PDP as this one is. If the
community found consensus for such things, then as a community
organisation AfriNIC should not oppose it. That is what the policy
process is there for, to build policy that the community wants. However,
if a specialised organisation could not gain the consensus of the
community such a policy would be rejected. This mitigates this concern
in my mind since anyone is free to propose any policy and put it through
the process.
> 2. The Policy is good in that it makes it easier for Universities to
quickly get IP addresses - which is a good thing since Universities tend
to be the safest custodian and best consumers of IP resources amongst
all other potential organisations.
100% agreed.
> I also see Maye's point that it could be that Southern region (read
SA), East African region (read Kenyan) & perhaps West Africa region
(read Nigerian) Universities maybe the ones who may "rush" for these IP
> resources at the expense of the other regions(countries). I think it
is a valid point and the most likely outcome of this policy.
I do not understand this point, at all. There has even been a South
African institution on the list stating they would not need to take
advantage of it. Those who have space have no real need of this policy
and based on emails I have put forward earlier in this discussion, it is
actually harder for those that have to qualify for large amounts of
space under this policy. However, in Ethiopia there sits one HEI that I
know of that has a single /30 for the entire University. This policy
would allow for that to change, it would give them the space they need.
Those who do NOT have space, need it, and this policy makes it far
easier for them to get it. The policy significantly advantages those who
currently have little or nothing, and I believe that that is in the best
interests of the entire continent, as it creates a far more equal
playing field and balances things removing the historical advantage from
those who already have resources.
Andrew
From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks at gmail.com >
To: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >; rpd < rpd at afrinic.net >
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
Thanks Maye,
I sent that privately but as I said in it, you are welcome to share my
concerns with the list.
I stand by what I have said there, that I do not understand your
motives, and that I believe strongly that this policy is in the best
interests of the African continent as a whole and that is what I fight
for. And I hope that we are NOT seeing a divide such as what this is
beginning to look like
Andrew
From: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >
Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:19 AM
To: rpd < rpd at afrinic.net >
Subject: Fwd: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks at gmail.com >
Date: 2013/6/26
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
To: Maye Diop < mayediop at gmail.com >
Sent off listâ€| your decision to take it back to the list or notâ€|.
; ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity;
Is this the REAL reason for your opposition? Not on technical grounds,
not on financial grounds, not on any other grounds, but because you
oppose something that is not coming out of your own region? Even though
we have shown and demonstrated that it will benefit your own region more
than the Southern or Eastern regions? I am now openly asking you, is
this a geo-political issue or a language issue or a racial issue?
Because if that is the case, I would be extremely saddened to find that
Africa once again cannot work together because of prejudice based on
location, ethnicity, language, tribal association or any other.
I believe, strongly, that this policy is in the benefit of the
continent as a whole, and I might point out, I actually spend VERY
little time in the southern region these days, most of my work is with
the commercials in East Africa, though I was involved in actively
supporting and fighting for the IPv6 task force in Senegal, have
presented in Ghana, have spent time in Gambia, and have always
demonstrated throughout my career that my focus has been Africa centric
rather then South Africa centric.
However, your statements and your views come across to me, and others
who have expressed this view to me, as being extremely guided by issues
that are not actually related to the policy and I question those motives
(and am quite prepared to debate that on list if you so choose)
Andrew
2013/6/26 Alan Barrett < apb at cequrux.com >
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Badru Ntege wrote:
<blockquote>
There is nothing stoping this institution now using the resources to
set up a local for profit ISP, or even passing these resources to a
third party that will take them off the continent.
See the existing IPv4 allocation policy, AFPUB-2005-V4-001, section
9.5:
" 9.5 Validity of an assignment
"
" Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria
" on which the assignment was based are still in place and
" the assignment is registered in the AFRINIC database. An
" assignment is therefore invalid if it is not registered in the
" database and if the purpose for which it was registered has
" changed or no longer holds.
An attempt to transfer of resources clearly invalidates the assignment
under clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001. I would argue that a mission
change on the part of the organisation (such as serving as a for-profit
ISP), would also invalidate the assignment under that clause.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
______________________________ _________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
</blockquote>
--
---------------------
Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
--
---------------------
Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/70835381/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
End of rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 61
***********************************
_____________________________________________________________________
University of the Free State: This message and its contents are subject to a disclaimer.
Please refer to http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details.
Universiteit van die Vrystaat:
Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig.
Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/vrywaring beskikbaar.
_____________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/36b45288/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list