Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] Last call - Academic IPv4 Allocation- AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 -

Fabian Jr afabbie at
Tue Jul 9 09:27:18 UTC 2013


i would respond to the proposal with 3 comments/questions:

1. why are we struggling with re-allocation of IPv4 while IPv6 is plenty out there ready for use ? are we predicting any roll back to IPv4  for any reasons ?  If no i would propose that we push on  migration to IPv6

2.  i think we need to show case successfully stories of getting away with NAT, because a good number of institutions still believe NAT is security measure rather than a temporary answer to IPv4 Scarcity.....  i think we need to have a session in one of the coming AFNOG/AFRINIC meetings on migrating from NAT practice to Public IP Practice (best practice show cases are needed and insights)

3. in many other cases we have been addressing HEI together with Research Institutes (RI), example RENs e.g TERNET in .TZ, why on this discussion are we pulling out HEI from the combined HEI and RI category ? 


Arbogast Fabian,


> From: paulos at
> To: rpd at
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:45:26 +0200
> Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] Last call - Academic IPv4 Allocation-	AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 - 
> Academic IPv4 Allocation- AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 
> A lot has been said already on this, I just want to add my voice that I am unable to
> support this policy draft as it stands right now. I would also like to note that those
> who are neutral on this are basically saying that there is no need to change policy as
> of now with this draft.
> It has already been shown on this debate that it does not work to say that I am speaking
> as an individual, so, I will put all my “hats” on.
> I like to proposal because I am an academic, a hat that says I teach in at university
> level. As an academic I tend to like aspects  of the policy that aim to improve the
> situation for academic institutions. But I do not see why this should be restricted to
> only HEI, whatever that is, it should go to other levels as well.
> Basing IP address allocation on things like number of students and staffs basically says
> that we would be basing this on the budget of the HEI and not on need for the IP
> resources. But in most public HEIs, the budget is mostly based on need and utilisation,
> so why would we move away from the same allocation based on need for IP resources?
> The budget for most public HEIs is a very tight one almost all the time. This may
> justify this policy which seems to aim to help cash-strapped HEIs but it also means
> exposing Afrinic to more financially toxic items. Seeing the reported financial
> statements this year, it becomes difficult, when I put on Afrinic hats, to assist one
> set of African institutions while poisoning another.
> One of the major principles of the AfrNIC PDP is fairness (3.3), everyone should be
> treated the same by Afrinic policies. While seeking to help HEIs, this policy draft
> seems to break this principle, across levels of academic institutions, across regions,
> across AfriNIC constituencies, across levels of development, etc. 
> The categorization of students still remains debatable. I would like to see how HIEs
> like UNISA measure up in the policy, in the simulations, and how do regions that supply
> very large numbers of students to such institutions benefit from this policy. Dynamics
> of HEIs seems to indicate a growing need for distance or network based education
> delivery. By removing the IP resource allocation based on network need, the policy seems
> to be biased to considering only the dynamics of HEIs while ignoring the dynamics of IP
> resource allocation.
> While I like aspects of the policy that address academics, the draft is in need of
> improvement and I would like it to go around once more for more debate and possible
> improvement so that I can be happy with it no matter which hat I am wearing.
> Regards,
> Paulos
> ======================
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> On 25 Jun 2013 at 11:33, Emile Milandou <emilemilan at> wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > 
> > Following the face to face discussions in Lusaka, Zambia during
> > AFRINIC 18, the following proposals reached consensus during the
> > meeting.
> > 
> > Remove requirement to announce entire v6 block as single aggregate
> > Steven Wiesman, Steven Tapper,Charles Hendrikson
> > AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT01
> > 
> > No Reverse Unless Assigned
> > Tim McGinnis
> > AFPUB-2012-DNS-001-DRAFT-02
> > 
> > Academic IPv4 Allocation
> > Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan 
> > AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
> > 
> > Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region
> > Mark Elkins, Mauritz Lewies, Tim McGinnis
> > AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01
> > 
> > The two-week last call period for these proposals starts today 25-06-2013.
> > 
> > At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on whether consensus has
> been reached by taking into consideration the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as
> well as those during this Last Call period.
> > 
> > With Regards,
> > 
> > Emile Milandou, Seun Ojedeji
> > PDWG co-Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list