[AFRINIC-rpd] RE: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

[JP]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:05:13PM +0000, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote:
> Guys just my 2 cents...

Most definitely. My replies are in-line:

> 7.3 Documentation
> 
> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard set by the hostmasters and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. An RIR may also request remote access to the network in question but not be limited to:

Uh..really? You consider some random administrative person to be
well-equipped enough in parsing network configs to make heads or tails
of it? That is, once we accept the fact that we'd just be giving out
access to /a business network/. No big deal, really. Just....oh, wait,
what? You mean banks or such would have to give AfriNIC access? Or
telcos? Or anyone? You must run a different kind of network. Either
that, or you're mad.

> - Colocation customer equipment (Hypervisors, Routers, Servers, Switches).
> - Core routers.
> - DHCP servers.
> - Hypervisors.
> 
> 7.4 Fairness
> 
> All policies and practices relating to the use of public address space will apply on a case to case basis to all existing and potential members of AFRINIC.

I'm not sure I understand how to read this sentence. Why the mention of
"case by case" if it'd apply unilaterally?

> 8.4 Additional Allocation
> 
> An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of all the address
> space currently allocated to it has been used in valid assignments and/or
> sub-allocations and subject to clause 7.3. A new allocation can also be made
> if single assignment or sub-allocation requires more addresses than those
> currently held by the LIR and also depending on the mood of the hostmasters.

Oh man. "depending on the mood", and just before that, "fairness". 

That said, I feel that watermarking things at 80% is is probably a bad
idea. 20% of a /21 is far different to 20% of a /16. And the exact
nature of the speed of growth of the network in question would be the
thing that matters here. If an SP can prove necessity for a new
allocation, that should probably suffice.

> Reservations are not considered as valid assignments or sub-allocations. It may be useful for internal aggregation to keep some IP blocks free for future growth. These internal reservations are however not counted as valid usage and must be assigned or sub-allocated before requesting for an additional allocation.
> 
> AFRINIC will always try to allocate contiguous address ranges, allowing the LIR to minimise the number of route announcements it makes. However, it will not always be possible to allocate a range contiguous with the LIR's previous allocation.

Well, that's reasonably sensible.

> 11) Record keeping by LIRs
> 
> LIR's must keep and maintain records of any documentation regarding assignments and sub-allocations to end users. It is needed for future reference when evaluating requests from the same organisation and for any audits by AFRINIC. These documents should be kept electronically for easier access. It's advisable that these records should include but not be limited to:
> 
> - The original request.

Sane.

> - Supporting documentation.

Sane.

> - Related correspondence between LIR and end-user (an RIR may ask for a remote access to the LIR mailboxes).

Wait what? ACCESS TO A MAILBOX? I....what? How is this in any way even a
thing someone could consider to put into a proposal, much less mean
seriously?

> - Decision of the assignment, and reasons behind any unusual decision.

Sensible. History does sometimes matter.

> - Role of person that made the decision.

Isn't this what AfriNIC's internal records should be for?

-J