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
Wed Jul 10 05:07:21 UTC 2013

thanks Andrew for your responses.....


on Item 1 i think we need to real push hard to be able to realize a successful story on the migration (IPv4 to IPv6), i can sight my own example..... we (Aga Khan University - Tanzania) have acquire /23 IPv4 and /48 IPv6, we have put in operation IPv4 already but we have not touched IPv6! What AFRINIC and/or IPv6 pushing team could do is to follow-up on users like us and assist/advise and see we take steps in implementing IPv6, and by the way we are doing multi-homing (one link from TERNET the other link from Commercial ISP)

on Item 2 i'm pleased to see a positive sign pls. hang out with it,  it's critical we need to show case in the coming AFRINIC/AFNOG workshops



Arbogast Fabian,


Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:59:41 +0300
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Last call - Academic IPv4 Allocation- AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 -
From: alston.networks at
To: afabbie at; paulos at; rpd at

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 that’s 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 “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
rpd mailing list
rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list