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

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 23 Feb 2016, at 15:09, ALAIN AINA wrote:

> Hello All,

hi,

> Thank you all for your interest in our policy proposal.  Some of the 
> impressions being created about what it sets out to achieve are 
> incorrect.  The IPv4 softlanding-bis policy proposal does not intend 
> to extend IPv4 lifetime at AFRINIC.

s/lifetime/availability.

(and that’s not necessarily bad, btw!)


> The policy proposal stays in the spirit of the global Global Policy 
> for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 address pool: 
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/135-afpub-2009-v4-001 
> (section 2 and 3) and the current IPv4 soft landing policy 
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy 
> (section 3).
>
> The proposal makes sure the distribution of the final /8 [102/8] is 
> fair enough based on the current consumption rate, assures 
> availability of IPv4 to new comers, to Critical Internet 
> Infrastructure as well as to the current players as we go through the 
> transition to IPv6.
>
> To achieve this, it says :
> - during  phase 1,  move the maximum from /10 to /15.
>
> http://afrinic.net/en/services/rs/membership-fees shows the member 
> categories and /15 is the median which covers majority of AFRINIC 
> membership as shown at  
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/membership  [members by 
> Category]

there was a lot of discussion around this at the time of the original 
policy.  many large ISPs felt that a /15 would severely impact them, and 
(please correct me douglas) that’s why during phase1, this was a large 
number (/10).

a median is fine, but, it’s still a median.  how do you propose 
afrinic deal with a large LIR request (specifically during phase1)


> - during phase 2, reserve a block for new comers and for Critical 
> Internet Infrastructures(new and current).  Make sure CIRs get IPv4 
> they need for their operations during the exhaustion and the 
> transition.
>
> CIRs have been expanded to include TLDs during exhaustion phase 2. 
> gTLDs are coming and ccTLDs being developed..
>
> Definition of CIR in other regions is available at 
> :https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2015-04#2-4-2

to be clear - because you did not state it - are you suggesting that we 
accept this definition for _this_ region as well?  and which definition? 
  it’s good to have reference, but, as has been pointed out before, 
what works elsewhere is *NOT* the same as what should needlessly be done 
here.  i, for one, would not support .MYSEXYNEWTLD as a critical 
resource, vs, say an african ccTLD.  others might feel otherwise.

since there are unlikely to be more RIRs created, and we *should* be 
able to assume that the IANA can take care of itself ;-)  what amounts 
to a CIR please?


> Our initial thinking was that IXPs may benefit from the CIRs block 
> during the phase 2 as the current reserve may not last and cover their 
> needs at that time. We have no objection about  removing IXPs from 
> CIRs.

you’re 100% correct in that the current reserve (when the hostmasters 
get around to implementing it) might not last.  we thumbsucked a number 
that we thought that the community would be willing to support, which 
worked to roughly 2x new IXPs per economy (well, less actually).  more 
space would be nice.
i don’t recall reading anyone asking for an exclusion;  i asked 
specifically how you saw the IXP’s *need* for non-network 
announcement, and *want* for allocations from a contiguous block, to 
easily identify accidental route leakage, to be addressed within this 
policy.  that remains unanswered.


> IPv6 deployment is slow. AFRNIC has the lowest rate of members with 
> v4/v6[1]. During exhaustion, one must have IPv6 (from AFRINIC or 
> upstreams ) when requesting IPv4.

i am still opposed to this part.  as it seems are others.  i am happy 
with the request-v4-once idea once you hit exhaustion phase X.  but 
i’m not happy about forcing an ipv6 allocation down someone’s 
throat;  that hardly sounds bottom-up to me…


> Deployment may not be enforceable but it puts IPv6 transition forward 
> as the clear agenda at this time.

ok, so then to save time, why doesn’t afrinic simply allocate the 
minimum the appropriate minimum IPv6 allocation to existing LIRs and EUs 
*now*;   ie. *every* resource member in good standing, that doesn’t 
already have an IPv6 allocation, automatically gets the minimum 
allocation per IPv6 allocation policy … think of how many more cute 
infographics can be made showing IPv6 rollout^Wallocations^Wgrowth^W^W 
in africa !!!    :-)

incidentally, quoting from your earlier paragraph:
“The policy proposal stays in the spirit of … soft landing (section 
3)“

and then reading those references:
135-afpub-2009-v4-001:
“This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining 
IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs”

and:
697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy section 3:
“This policy (IPv4 Soft Landing), applies to the management of address 
space that will be available to AfriNIC after the current IPv4 pool is 
depleted.”
… in fact, the words IPv6 do not appear in soft landing, section 3, 
*at all*.

so, i’d strongly suggest to the authors to decouple “IPv4 management 
under soft landing” (which i think is important) from, “enforced 
ipv6 allocations”

best,
—n.