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 -

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Tue Jul 9 10:59:41 UTC 2013

Hi Fabian,

Please see responses inline.

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

> This proposal actually does push for the migration to IPv6, since you cannot
get an allocation under this policy without showing IPv6 deployment plans.
Further more, while the myth that IPv4 resources are endless persists because
Africa is so far behind the rest of the world in its IPv4 burn rate, the
incentives to migrate to IPv6 are drastically reduced due to a perception
problem by some that it isn't needed.  This policy also serves to help correct
that situation.

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)

> I think this is a useful and practical suggestion.  I'd be happy to write up
some stuff on experiences with NAT and where it fundamentally broke things and
caused large amounts of complexity, specifically in the academic sector, and
even directly tied to the deployment of IPv6.  May take me a week or two to do
this though as I'd need to access some material that¹s not accessible from where
I am at the moment.

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 ?

Firstly I don't think we are really pulling HEI's out from a collective, as
the current policies actually refer to academic institutions and if you are
referring to the fee discounts, applied equally to individual institutions
and NREN's, both LIR's and PI users.  This policy focuses on end users for a
few reasons as I see it.  Firstly, before an LIR can allocate end user
space, it needs to be able to see that the end user can justify that space
requirement.  While there are some NREN's that are in a position to evaluate
such requests (KENET, TENET as examples, but these are not the only one),
many of the NREN's are still fledgling organisations and the evaluation of
such requests would be challenging.  Secondly, if you look at the audit
reports against modern universities from external auditors, more and more
one of the requirements is backup of critical systems (I can demonstrate at
least 3 audit reports where the auditors have demanded offsite hot standby
on critical IT systems).  The next evolution of this and we're already
seeing it, is backup Internet connectivity from a second provider, due to
the criticality of the service.  This is in no way detrimental to the
national academic networks, it is merely sane strategy for any University
who relies on its connectivity to function.  In order to do proper
multi-homing as we see in many institutions around the world, PI space and
an ASN is a requirement.  As such, the end users (the Universities) need
their own space to implement such a strategy.

Hope this answers your questions



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 ³hats² on.
> I like to proposal because I am an academic, a hat that says I teach in at
> 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
> resources. But in most public HEIs, the budget is mostly based on need and
> so why would we move away from the same allocation based on need for IP
> The budget for most public HEIs is a very tight one almost all the time. This
> justify this policy which seems to aim to help cash-strapped HEIs but it also
> exposing Afrinic to more financially toxic items. Seeing the reported
> 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
> seems to break this principle, across levels of academic institutions, across
> 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.
> of HEIs seems to indicate a growing need for distance or network based
> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list