[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Madhvi,

Firstly, I am in possession of a request from AfriNIC to a system that was
most definitely not a monitoring system, it was a production system behind
which customers sit.

Secondly, every member has to sign the MSA, and the MSA specifically
states that the member commits to giving AfriNIC accurate and complete
information.  Is it therefore AfriNIC's position that members who sign the
MSA need to be further vetted, and that AfriNIC has a default position of
considering application requests as lies and a breach of the MSA, hence
needing all of the additional vetting?

Thirdly, you refer to members who are registered on the continent who have
customers who are international or who have international infrastructure.
I point out that under current AfriNIC policy there is *NO* policy under
which AfriNIC can deny space for use outside of the continent to an
African organisation.  The only policy that exists that makes reference to
this is the soft landing policy which only comes into play when you get to
the last /8 worth of AfriNIC space.  To deny space because it is being
used off continent to a legitimate African entity right now is quite
frankly completely out of line with AfriNIC current policy.

Should AfriNIC wish to change this, they themselves must bind themselves
to the very policy process as signed off by the board, and submit a policy
change which can be tabled at the next AfriNIC meeting and then go through
the same last call process of every other policy.  Until such time, using
the fact that registered entities who have infrastructure are assigning
space off continent as justification for anything is out of line and
cannot be done.

If AfriNIC wishes to dispute this, I would ask that you please quote the
policies that give AfriNIC the belief that geographic location of
equipment or customers has any bearing on current assignments to a legal
African entity.

At the last policy meeting there was SUBSTANTIAL discussion about how we
needed to make the application process easier so that members could more
easily gain access to AfriNIC resources, and increase the current burn
rate.  That was outside of the discussion of any particular policy, but
the discussion was there.  Instead of this, I see a situation where
AfriNIC seems hell bent on making it more difficult and more cumbersome
for people to access the resources that AfriNIC finds itself as custodian
of.

I stand by what I said on the PCI DSS standards, there are many companies
who have space from AfriNIC who may require more who will simply never be
at liberty to give AfriNIC *ANY* access to any internal systems, and that
includes, but is not limited to, banks, government defence departments,
military and the likes.  Are you stating that when such organisations
declare their IP usage in an excel spreadsheet or such that clearly
demonstrates where they will be using it and now, AfriNIC will not take
these documents and accept them, irrespective of the commitments made
under the MSA?  If so, you will effectively block the ability of any
secure organisation to gain IP space, and at this point, AfriNIC will be
severely hindering the growth of the industry on the African continent.

We talk about promoting Internet access in Africa, part of that is
promoting the distribution of address space in Africa so that people can
access the resources they need to get online, if that is indeed part of
AfriNIC's mandate, its about time AfriNIC started playing closer attention
to the effects their IP allocation procedures may be having on the
industry.

Andrew


On 2013/09/11 2:25 PM, "madhvi Gokool" <madhvi at afrinic.net> wrote:

>Dear Colleagues
>
>Please find below my comments regarding the above post on this mailing
>list .
>
>Registration Services has observed that most members requesting for
>additional resources are not fully policy compliant at the time of
>request submission for different reasons(mainly when it comes to
>registering assignments in the whois DB). Usually the hostmasters assist
>and coach them in the process of properly registering their used
>resources and generally the outcome has been positive.
>
>During request evaluation, AFRINIC hostmasters verify the assignments
>registered by the member in the whois database to determine the usage
>ratio and ensure non-overlapping assignment etcŠ]. Due to the nature of
>the business of some members, they register the whole pool of their IP
>allocation as a single assignment. In this case, hostmasters request for
>either :-
>a) READ-ONLY/ temporary access toany monitoring system the members have
>so that they can view the concurrent sessions during peak hours & also
>the historical data/growthor
>b) a video conference where member can show them the live graphs. The
>LIRs get to make accurate projections based on their average growth rate
>as well & receive allocations that will meet their needs for the next 12
>months.
>
>Hostmasters are aware of the sensitive nature of the information that is
>shared with them during the evaluation process. A lot of LIR members
>have security policies in place and we respect that. In the majority of
>the requests, our members demonstrate how the current allocations are
>being used (valid assignments) via remote sessions e.g webex or limited
>duration remote sessions during which hostmasters view the statistics
>and "coach" the members into submitting the snapshots/graphs that will
>provide justification to their request.
>
>If the LIRs don't have such a system in place, they even propose
>alternatives in which they could show that the IP addresses are in use ,
>and AFRINIC collaborated with them & accepted them. The results have
>been positive in these cases as well.
>
>Instead of rejecting requests for non-compliance with the policies, the
>hostmasters have adopted a "teach and approve" approach to educate the
>members into how they can manage their IP resources and also to make
>their future requests as painless as possible.
>In the case of this particular post on the mailing list, the hostmasters
>have persevered in encouraging the member to comply with the AFRINIC
>policies.
>
>AFRINIC has again received a request in which an LIR located in its
>service region has ISPs incorporated outside the AFRINIC service region
>as customers and the majority of the allocations are assigned to these
>customers' customers.
>
>It so happens that I presented a policy implementation experience report
>during the most recent AIS meeting in Lusaka in which I elaborated on
>the issues that Registration Services at AFRINIC encountered including
>similar to this and tried its best to overcome. The presentation is
>available at the link below and we at AFRINIC hope that the community
>will address them & come will clear answers to them.
>If you have any further queries regarding the policy implementation
>report, please feel free to post them on the rpd list.
>
>http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-imp
>lementation-report.pdf
>
>Regards
>Madhvi
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Madhvi Gokool                          Tel:   +230 403 51 00
>Registration Service Manager           Sip: madhvi at voip.afrinic.net
>www.afrinic.net
>(E): madhvi at afrinic.net
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at afrinic.net
>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd