[rpd] Policy Proposal Update - IPv4 Soft Landing-bis

[Owen DeLong]

As I see it, the large providers are not seeking IP addresses to use internally for the most part. They use those addressed to provide services to customers who are themselves often small upcoming players. 

No matter how we change policy, we cannot change the fact that there are not enough addresses in IPv4. 

I do not see any benefit to anyone from creating an artificial shortage early in order to make sure that the real shortage has a longer duration and impacts a larger number of people overall. 

That is the actual effect of this proposal which purports to be about protecting the small upcoming player from the larger established players. 

While I don't doubt the good intentions of the purveyors of this proposal, I do not believe it would achieve the intended result, nor do I believe it would have a good outcome for any fraction of the community. 

Owen


On Aug 25, 2016, at 22:06, Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

>> Shortchanging the extra rich companies like Liquid telecom you mean?
> We start losing the point  when we start correlating the richness of a company to the need of enacting a fair policy that addresses the needs of Africans . 
> 
>> Such are the "more people" you talk about here who mostly want the huge amount of IPv4 now at the detriment of >upcoming small players.
> 
> The question here I think is the "huge amount of IPV4" being  put into good use ,  can it be accounted for ?. Is it a need based request? and is it being used to serve the people in Africa? 
> 
> Again you drag the "upcoming small players" into this policy , that again misses the point , that is a whole separate investment topic not of interest to this group. 
> 
>> Such are the "more people" that can freely gloat about IPv6 deployment now because their financial resources can >allow it.
> 
> Uuuhhm ? We need to demystify the myth that to start doing anything about IPV6 you really need to spend a lot of money. Lots of people have given their recommendation about how to go about this ,most of which are not monetary.  I will not go into details . In our case, it was careful planning , focus, vendor engagement , dedication to beat own deadlines and the will to make this work. 
> Any new entrants are way more advantaged as they can factor in IPV6 considerations in planning , buying and rollout .
> 
>> Yet reality is that IPv4 is still here and our region is still growing. Such large companies can also afford to buy IPv4 >from >secondary market at any cost after exhaustion while the small upcoming ones will struggle afford this, and you >guys >outside the region are busy pushing for the large players to deplete our reserves, in which spirit I wonder?
> 
> Refer to first point .
> 
>> A justified need now means any huge company can deplete all IPv4 reserve. It is a very unfair policy at this moment in >time when that reserve is still needed by many others. Is this what you really want for us?
> 
> First point Again! But just to add , the many others ? Where are they ?Are they making the request , Are their request being treated fairly? Are they also meant to serve the same community as the huge companies ?
> 
> Regards
> Christopher 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>