[rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"

Mon Feb 22 05:21:46 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew:

Thanks for clarification.

IMHO, maybe more distinctive naming of each policy will help community member understand the situation better, as from my experience of globe IP policy, it is indeed very rare situation there are two policies attempt to address the same issue at same time.

But of course it is just my feeling, if the confusion are only happen to me, then there is no need for change the name.

> 在 2016年2月22日，上午8:11，Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 写道：
> 
> Hi Lu,
> 
> You are correct.
> 
> At the moment there are two separate and mutually exclusive proposals on how to update the soft landing policy.
> 
> From my reading, they attempt to do two very different things.
> 
> One of them (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02) attempts to extend the life of V4 by a fairly lengthy period while also ensuring that new entrants can get some space.  The other, (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT-02) does not attempt to extend the life of V4 but does attempt to ensure that there is sufficient space for new entrants.
> 
> The authors of AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT-02 felt that attempting to artificially extend the life of v4 in the manner proposed by both the original soft landing policy and the AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02 proposal was a futile exercise that would end up holding Africa back in terms of its V6 deployment.  We also disagreed with the reservation of v4 space for future unforeseen circumstances, when in reality development and new things we cannot foresee should be based on IPv6.  
> 
> In addition to this, we objected to the fact that this policy dual-reserves space for certain things that are covered explicitly under other policies.
> 
> Many of our concerns with AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02 were raised on the mailing list, and despite comments on this proposal from multiple individuals none of the authors chose to engage on the mailing list to address or answer the concerns, either to refute or confirm them.  As such, a counter proposal was prepared that was more in line with what the authors of AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT-02 would prefer to see, and the community may now debate both (hopefully in detail on this list BEFORE Gaborone) and then on the floor in Gaborone, and see which, if any, gain consensus.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> From: "h.lu at anytimechinese.com" <h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
> Date: Monday, 22 February 2016 at 12:38 AM
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update (was: Re: New Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)"
> 
> Hi
> 
> Correct me if I am reading wrong, there are two version of new soft landing policy proposal here, the difference are follow:
> 
>  One go all the way to last /13, and then all new entry /22 each. The other one reserve the last /8, in which in more complicated way to go different stages and more inline with current version policy.
> 
> Please help to understand the confusion.
> 
> 
> 在 2016年2月21日，下午7:38，Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 写道：
> 
>> Dear members,
>> 
>> This is to inform that an update has been published for this proposal.
>> 
>> Details can be found at the following URL:
>> 
>> http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1625-soft-landing-bis-draft-02-
>> 
>> ID: AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>>> On 9 Feb 2016 2:46 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Members,
>>> 
>>> We have received a new policy Proposal - "Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-01)"
>>> 
>>> Draft Policy name: Soft Landing - BIS
>>> Unique identifier: AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-01
>>> Status: Under Discussion
>>> Submission Date 06 February 2016
>>> Amends:
>>> AFPUB-2010-v4-005 (IPv4 soft landing policy)
>>> Authors:
>>> a. Omo Oaiya, omo at wacren.net, WACREN
>>> b. Joe Kimaili, jkimaili at ubuntunet.net, Ubuntunet Alliance
>>> c. Alain P. AINA, aalain at trstech.net, TRS 
>>> 
>>> Url: https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1609-soft-landing-bis
>>> 
>>> Text Below:
>>> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>>> 
>>> The soft landing policy ratified by the board on 11/11/2011 describes how AFRINIC should manage allocations/assignments from the last /8. It defines 2 phases for IPv4 exhaustion. During phase 1, it sets the maximum allocation/assignment to be /13 instead of /10 and in phase 2, the maximum to /22 and the minimum to /24. It makes no difference between existing LIRs or End-Users and new ones. The policy also does not impose IPv6 deployment.
>>> 
>>> IPv4 exhaustion in other regions combined with other factors has imposed huge pressure on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool with requests for large IPv4 blocks, with very little IPv6 deployment. The pressure on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool has led to some policy proposals to reserve some blocks for certain sub-communities.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
>>> 
>>> This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:
>>> 
>>>     Changing the value of the maximum allocation/assignment size during the exhaustion phase 1.
>>>     Imposing IPv6 resources as a pre-condition to IPv4 resource requests during the exhaustion.
>>>     Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure and new LIRs or End-Users.
>>>     Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over time during the exhaustion period.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3) Proposal
>>> 
>>> 3.1 The policy proposal changes clause/article 3.5.1 of the current IPv4 Soft Landing Policy to:
>>> 3.5.1 EXHAUSTION PHASE 1During this phase,allocation/assignment of address space will continue as in the Current phase with no explicit minimum but the maximum will change from /10 to /15.
>>> 
>>> Allocations and assignments will be made from the Final /8 or from any other IPv4 address space available to AFRINIC, until no more than a /11 of non-reserved space is available in the Final /8.At this point, exhaustion phase 2 will begin.
>>> 
>>> For the avoidance of doubt all applications that will be in process at this point will be evaluated as per the new policy.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.2 This policy proposal changes Clauses/Articles 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 of the current IPv4 Soft Landing Policy to:
>>> 3.6 If any LIR or End User requests IPv4 address space during Exhaustion: There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organization may request additional IPv4 address space during Exhaustion Phase 1. During exhaustion Phase 2, new LIRs or End-Users can receive only one allocation/assignment from the new LIRs or End-Users reserved pool.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.8 Allocation CriteriaIn order to receive IPv4 allocations or assignments during the Exhaustion Phase, the LIR or
>>> End User must meet IPv4 allocation or assignment policy requirements and must have used at
>>> least 90% of all previous allocations or assignments (including those made during both the Current Phase and the Exhaustion Phase).
>>> 
>>> In the case of new LIRs or End Users with no previous allocations or assignments, this
>>> requirement does not apply to their first allocation or assignment request.
>>> 
>>> LIRs and End users requesting IPv4 space must have IPv6 resources from AFRINIC (or request IPv6 concurrently with their IPv4 request), or from their upstream providers.
>>> 
>>> AFRINIC resources are for the AFRINIC service region and any use outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the AFRINIC region
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.9 IPv4 Address Space for [Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)], critical Internet infrastructure, new LIRs or End-Users and unforeseen circumstances
>>> 
>>> During exhaustion phase 2, allocations/assignments to IXPs, Critical Internet infrastructure and new LIRs and End-Users will be as follows:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.9.1 Assignments to critical infrastructure
>>> 
>>> A /16 from the final /11 will be held in reserve for exclusive use by critical Internet infrastructure. On application for IPv4 resources, a critical Internet Infrastructure operator may receive one number resource (maximum /22).
>>> 
>>> Critical infrastructure are ICANN-sanctioned DNS root server operators, IXPs, TLD (Top Level Domain) operators, IANA and RIRs.
>>> 
>>>     On application for IPv4 resources, an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) will receive one number resource (maximum /23) according to the following:
>>>     This space will be used to run an Internet Exchange Point peering LAN; other uses are forbidden.
>>>     New Internet Exchange points will be assigned a maximum of /24.  Internet exchange points may return this assignment (or existing PI used as in the IXP peering LAN) should they run out of space and receive a larger (a maximum of /23 if utilization requires) assignment.
>>>     IP space returned by Internet Exchange Points will be added to the reserved pool maintained for use by Internet Exchange Points.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.9.2 Allocations/Assignments to new LIRs or End-Users
>>> 
>>> A /14 from the final /11 will be held in reserve for exclusive use by new LIRs or End-Users with no prior IPv4 address space from AFRINIC.  On application for IPv4 resources, a new LIR or End-User may receive one number resource (maximum /22).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3.9.3 Reserve for unforeseen situations
>>> 
>>> A /13 IPv4 address block will be in reserved out of the Final /8. This /13 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses.
>>> 
>>> When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), AFRINIC in consultation with the community via the Policy Discussion Mailing list and considering the demand and other factors at the time will replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interests of the community.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 4.0) Revision History
>>> 
>>> 4th February 2016 AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT01 (Version 1.0) Posted to the rpd mailing list
>>> 
>>> 5.0) References
>>> 
>>> Global Policy for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 address pool: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/135-afpub-2009-v4-001
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6.0) Frequently Asked Questions
>>> 
>>> Please click here to read through some important frequently asked questions behind understanding the content in this proposal.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> Relevant Url:
>>> 1. Policy Development process: http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sami Salih & Seun Ojedeji
>>> PDWG Co-Chairs
>>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160222/6f589cea/attachment-0001.html>