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

[Noah Maina]

On 11 July 2014 02:17, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 15:35 , Noah Maina <mainanoa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2014 00:49, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Errr,
>>
>> Owen, for the record.
>>
>> My employer is an African multi-national.  How do African companies
>> expanding outwards help Africa?  Lets stop for a second and think about
>> this.
>>
>
> I did not say or mean to imply that African companies expanding outwards
> did not help Africa.
>
> However, I would argue that if they do so by gaining a competitive
> advantage
> over the "natives" in other regions using resources intended to serve the
> AfriNIC
> community, they are doing a larger disservice to the AfriNIC community than
> any potential benefit achieved for that same community.
>
> Firstly, we need infrastructure in foreign countries for peering, for
>> transit routers, for providing circuits to people on the African continent
>> who want to reach foreign entities.  Without infrastructure off the
>> continent, how exactly do we provide end to end service to other African
>> companies looking for things like EoMPLS circuits with the A side in
>> Africa and the B side outside of Africa? Or would you rather that we
>> played the half circuit game at additional expense to the African
>> consumer?
>>
>
> The proposed policy provide for more than enough address space use outside
> of the AfriNIC service region to cover this. Nobody is disputing the need
> for this.
>
> What I was talking about (and what Andrew stated, or at the very least
> implied)
> was using AfriNIC issued resources to expand services sold to customers
> outside
> of the AfriNIC service region.
>
> Would you rather than African multi-national ISP’s didn’t have
>> international points of presence where they could peer off their traffic
>> at exchanges internationally and reduce the cost of service provision to
>> their african customers?  Would your rather we wait for people to bring
>> the content to us at inflated prices rather than going to the source and
>> fetching it ourselves?
>>
>
> Of course not and I would never support a policy that prevented this.
> However,
> that's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The policy being
> discussed
> allows more than sufficient extra-regional resource utilization to
> accommodate
> this. Andrew's stated opposition implied a much larger need for
> out-of-region
> resource utilization and a complaint about being unable to obtain that
> space
> from the other regions.
>
> If we're strictly talking about peering infrastructure, then, as a matter
> of fact,
> you can obtain a /22 from RIPE and a /22 from APNIC for that purpose and
> I believe that would more than cover most such needs. Especially since
> peering
> at IXPs usually involves obtaining the IXP address from the IXP itself and
> doesn't
> consume your resources.
>
> All of these things require international infrastructure, it has to be
>> numbered, and as you yourself have admitted, V4 is still a major part of
>> this.  Of course I can get V6 resources out of region, but the V4
>> resources are still necessary and getting those for international
>> infrastructure without using AfriNIC resources is not possible right now.
>>
>
> And all of this is a red herring compared to the discussion that led to my
> comments.
>
> I might also point out, there are vast tracts of the African continent
>> still only served by Satellite, if the Satellite hub is in Europe and the
>> customers themselves are in Africa, if I am routing the space to the
>> Satellite hub in Europe, where are the resources being used?  Its
>> ambigious.
>>
>
> And everyone has stated that this policy should not be interpreted as to
> prevent
> that. The consideration should be based on the location of the end
> customer using
> the resources, not the media translation gateways in between.
>
> I might also point out, that large African multi-nationals that are
>> expanding also provide a LOT of employment on the continent and the
>> expansion off continent helps drive the employment ON the continent (for
>> example, NOC’s based in Africa for international networks, that employ
>> large numbers of people in Africa, for the betterment of the African
>> community)
>>
>
> And here we hit the first point which is actually relevant to the ongoing
> policy
> discussion and not a red herring. Rather than repeat my first paragraph
> here,
> I will simply incorporate it by reference.
>
> @Andrew  +++++++1 x1000.  Rest your case, you need not to say more :-)
>> ...I raise a glass.
>
>
> I wish you the best of luck in this regard.
>
>
Yeah LoL


>  IMHO, I don’t support this policy even a bit since it doesn't even take
> into consideration the operational reality on the ground. Besides, hardly
> 20% of the resources obtained from Afrinic are used outside Africa by
> entities registering in Africa with operations in Africa mainly for
> infrastructure seated outside Africa....
>
>
>  use in other regions through a rather interesting VPN-based dodge to the
> policy.
>
>
How many would go that far, lets be realistic....

Naked truth, the biggest market for IP now is in Africa and she continues
> to develop her Internet!!!!
>
>
> Naked truth, bigger or smaller doesn't matter. There's enough demand and
> enough money in the other regions to bleed Africa's IPv4 number resources
> dry rather quickly.
>
>
That is besides the point and folks at AfriNIC are not sleeping, they
work!!!....This resources shall be used here and by operators in Africa to
expand both within and outside.

> So if this policy is for restricting number resource usage to a certain %
> outside Africa, then where exactly are you going to use them v4 IP's, In
> Europe, North America, Asia, where the internet is already developed and
> folks are already getting used to v6, not a chance.
>
>
> You bet. Address consumption and trading is continuing in those regions
> and the internet continues to grow in those regions. Used to IPv6? I wish.
> Progress is being made, but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be.
>
>
There is somewhat compelling evidence vs our region....that is not
nothing...Facebook, Google are a good example, end users always catch up
since they dont run the network, they consume the service...


> http://www.delong.com/ipv6_fortune500.html
> http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html
>
> Owen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140711/d422388e/attachment.html>