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

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Jun 27 18:38:39 UTC 2013

> so we have an institution with a capacity of 2000 students at any one time and library capacity of 200 students.  so at any one time the institution can have 240 students on the premises.    however most courses are part time so on average classes last four hours.  In a week this institution could have up to 10,000 individual students attend a class but the occupancy number can never exceed 2,200 due to physical capacity.  

I'm not understanding where 240 came from. 2,200 makes sense to me, but disregards any possibility of on-campus housing for some of those students.

> lets also assume that out of this total number only 1,000 students are full time.  
> based on the policy this school will be able to claim the 10,000 students.   This is a major flow.  as someone stated earlier the resources are given to CPE not people and this is for exactly this reason.   

Uh, no... 1,000 students are full time. You gave no number for staff, but let's assume 250 full time staff, that leaves us with 9,000 part time students. The school would be able to obtain 1,250+4500=5,570 headcount which translates into (rounding up to a bit boundary) a /17 of address space.

To me, this seems like a very reasonable assignment size for such an institution.

Your use of the term CPE is misplaced in this context. The word you are looking for is "devices".

>>>> 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 ??
>> I believe that staff can be trusted to implement the required procedures and accounting for this.
> No doubt they can be trusted but how much work will be involved in ensuring things are done well and service levels are also maintained.  Too much subjectivity.    

Not really. The institution must provide a plan with commitment dates on it when they first apply. If they come back for more IPv4, then the plan will be evaluated against their current state of IPv6 deployment. I don't think this has to be all that complicated.

>>>> 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 
>> What do you think of my earlier proposed rewording of 3.5-3.7?
> the rewording still does not change meaning too much and translation is still subjective.  Staff meaning could and will be different from applicant understanding.

You'll need to clarify what you mean by that.

I'm not sure what translation you are referring to since my rewording, the policy, and AfriNIC's operations are conducted in English.

>>>> 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.
>>> This is a very scary point.   I would suggest to drop this clause completely.
>> While I am inclined to agree with you, I don't see it as being scary. Can you explain what scares you about this provision?
> Currently HEI's are eligible to 50% discount.  We are proposing a gold rush on our last IPv4 resources at reduced price.  Makes no logic from a sustainability point of view.

I think the term gold rush is greatly exaggerated. I don't think that the institutions in question will completely drain the existing IPv4 free pool. Further, IPv4 is not sustainable and basing the sustainability of the registry on IPv4 into the future is folly. We must look at how revenues from IPv6 and ASNs will sustain the registry if we are to have anything truly sustainable.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list