Search RPD Archives
[rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Wed Oct 22 12:00:25 UTC 2014
Let me expand on this slightly.
If you look at a large international organization serving multiple African countries. They typically have offices that are off continent as well as on-continent. Those off-shore offices still need IP space and are critical to the functioning of the organizations in question. Then we have the issues of points of presence internationally, some of which can be pretty large, which include routers, switches, and potentially servers which are directly related to the functioning of the network on the African continent.
Then we start looking at satellite infrastructure, where an organization is providing satellite access to customers in Africa, the satellite base stations potentially sit in Europe, the space is handed out from Europe to clients on the ground (often dynamically), but it is routed via Europe because of the way Sattelite works.
There are simply too many possibilities and my view is that the policy as proposed doesn’t take these into account. It also doesn’t address how we define in-region vs out-of-region usage. The numbers in the policy with regards to the split between in-region and out-of-region are also unquantified, what lead to these numbers? What is the reasoning and justification behind them? Are they just arbitrary numbers we dreamt up to put numbers on paper to make people feel good? Because if we’re going to put numbers like that, my view is, substantiate them, let us, as a community, understand where those numbers came from and what the basis is.
Again, written in my personal capacity and in no way representative of the AfriNIC board positions on the matter.
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:43 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: Borg; Victor; AfriNIC RPD MList.
Subject: Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
(Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form)
I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment.
Just to be clear, do you think this policy will deny availability of IP resource to organisations that intend to expand their growth in Africa? How will the example below be affected by this policy, if the $200million is indeed for growth/expansion within the region?
PS: An individual's layman question.
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD