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

[rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward?

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Sat Jul 19 11:31:58 UTC 2014

Hello Noah

"changing the subject line to allow for proper followup"
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Noah Maina <mainanoa at> wrote:

> Which is why I was arguing that LIRs shouldn't seat on the space allocated
> but use it extensively. If customers want ips give it to them.
Lots of LIR don't practice this, they kind-of encourage NATing by giving
their users a few public IP and when the user ask for more, they attach a
fee to it. A typical ISP gives max of a /28 for free and everything beyond
attracts an extra fee. You can imagine a typical institution with over
40,000 users assigned a /28 for use.

> There is one thing announcing an aggregate to ones upstream! Then there is
> another thing ensuring that a good percentage of that same aggregate has
> been utilised well downstream....whose business is that? For the internet
> to develop allocations have to be somewhat utilised IMHO and more acquired.
You made a valid point, an scenario is having a /16 advertised and using 1
for NATing and say another 4 as DSNAT to internal server running private
IP. This has become normal practice that is almost turning to a culture.

> We have no problems assigning our customers ip addresses. They get amazed
> by it because to us its more business and confidence from our customers. We
> also encourage our customers to send us everything I mean everything
> especially those with their own allocation and ASN.
+1 and good for you by doing that. Just to ask, do you in anyway check to
confirm if your customers are indeed utilizing the requested block?

> As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider
> sounds old school but thats wats up! !!
You can say that again, it may shock you to know that the provide is a
major ISP in the continent!

> And for the old NAT, its here to stay. wanna kick out out....start
> from its inception which is collage and academys where Fundamentals of
> Routing are taught lol...NAT/PAT is like a 1st time ideology embibe onto
> any aspiring network engineer...then there is the believe that NAT offers
> some sort of security lol.
> Hopefully v6 will kick-it out finally, in generation to come though ;)


> Cheers.
> Noah
> On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at>
> wrote:
>>  *There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet
>> of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen;
>> for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach
>> a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite  surprising
>> and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the
>> current provider or moving on to another!*
>> *Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that
>> will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could
>> raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure"
>> usage ;)*
>> That’s about the most bizarre thing I’ve read in quite a while… as a
>> provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly
>> have to me – the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me
>> to them, the more transit I sell them.  I really don’t understand the logic
>> behind some providers.
>>  Let’s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own space
>> and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as much
>> advertisement as possible.  However, on the converse, it is in a providers
>> interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not running BGP
>> at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably isn’t
>> multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to
>> renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less
>> likely to move on).
>>  It’s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC’s (and hence it could be
>> argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible with
>> their own space and their own ASN’s.  However, it is in the interests of
>> providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks assigned
>> by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour.  At the same time, what amazes me
>> about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a providers
>> interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this isn’t
>> something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the continent.  The
>> simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the
>> changes required on the customer side are minimal.  However, a customer on
>> a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space all over the
>> place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive
>> activity.  (I’ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT customers
>> are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by double digit
>> percentage points).
>>  Thanks
>>  Andrew
>> ------------------------------
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at


*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
<> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at
<seun.ojedeji at>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list