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

[rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01)

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Thu Jul 10 19:18:40 UTC 2014

+1 to what Nishal said.

Particularly about not being able to actually verify or police where space
was/is used.

Further more, representing a LARGE African operator who is expanding both
inwards and outwards, I would want the ability to use the space assigned
to us where I see fit, without limitation and without policy that could
potentially hurt my employer hanging over my head.

Speaking this time as an employee of a large African operator, and stating
clearly that what I say does not necessarily represent the views of the
AfriNIC board, I once again stand opposed to this policy.



On 7/10/14, 7:19 PM, "Nishal Goburdhan" <ndg at> wrote:

>On 09 Jul 2014, at 10:02 AM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at> wrote:
>> Hi Omo,
>> On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya <omo at> wrote:
>> This means each RIR is expected to operate within the boundaries of the
>>regions they serve.
>> Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that
>> RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with
>> this general principle.
>bzzt.  no, not really, and no sane operator world-wide will attest to
>this.  when i was an operator, i routed space from at least three
>different other regions for customers of mine, that were operating
>infrastructure _inside_ africa - as long as they could show legitimate
>right to use this space.  large mulitnationals often operate like this.
>where the multinational obtains the space from, was not my (operator)
>concern.  that my client could show the right to use it, was.
>when i was an operator, i used address space that i had received to build
>my (african based) network, in at least three other continents.  the
>internet police have yet to come knocking on my door...
>RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region.
>if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points,
>i see a fair chunk of "international" space.  good for them, i say.
>> There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with this principle, but I
>>hope you get the general point.
>i don't think you've answered Omo's question.  but i'll leave that to Omo
>to decide.
>> Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to
>> quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer.
>>> Is there any evidence of this?  If there is, what is the current
>>> for such
>> Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this.
>>> Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and
>>> it in network?
>> Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be
>> responsible for the implementation/enforcement.
>so perhaps then, it would be prudent to get an indication of exactly
>_how_ much of a nuisance this is, _before_ trying to fit policy, eh?
>there are many other forums that bemoan the growth of behemoth
>ISPs/carriers in africa.  as a result, africa has come to rely on
>non-african carries to manage her connectivity, and we've seen how that's
>traditionally worked out.  i suggest you spend the time necessary to
>consider how your proposed policy affects africa's ability to grow and
>sustain these giants of our own.  i would hate to think that one of the
>large operators from here, that was looking to expand their global
>network into another region suddenly can't .. haven't we just shot
>ourselves in the foot?
>frankly, i wish those carriers would speak up for themselves, since it
>seems that very few actual operators have spoken up in this thread,
>imho, if you truly want better uptake of resources in africa, you should
>be making it easier for bona-fida african organisations to get those
>and note:  i haven't mentioned anything about verifying resource usage in
>a policy appropriate location, because, i believe that's largely
>unenforceable, and would welcome _sound_ evidence to the contrary.  like
>most of you, i guess, i'll wait for the staff analysis on how they see
>this being done.
>the sooner folks accept that an IP address is really just about
>routability, the fewer issues you'll have, and, i predict, the more time
>you'll have to spend on things that matter for the future - like
>IPv6/DNSSEC/...  :-)
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at

DISCLAIMER:  This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email.  We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.

More information about the RPD mailing list