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

[sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]

Hi John,
At 04:41 27-08-2016, John Hay wrote:
>Should it be about the company or what they want to do with it? Is a 
>big allocation because you want to connect a lot of users worse than 
>a small allocation connecting a few users? It does not seem fair either.

A large organization is one which pays Afrinic Ltd over US $22,500 
annually.  The existing policies do not get into what that large 
organization (or company) wishes to do with the large allocation, 
e.g. will it be used by an internet service provider to service its 
residential users?

An answer to the second question is it is not a problem if Liquid 
Telecom is using those addresses to connect a large number of its 
customers in Kenya as that is what those addresses are supposed to be 
for.  What if there is a small internet service provider in another 
African country trying to do the same?  It is not a problem.

>So I guess a question should be, how much do we want to stretch our 
>reserve of IPv4 space? If we stretch it too much, we will still have 
>left when nobody wants it anymore.

Yes.

>  If that happens because we denied allocation requests along the 
> way, was that fair to them? If we don't stretch it enough and we 
> run out earlier, we are kind of in the same boat as the rest of the world.

The decision(s) will have a financial impact on Afrinic Ltd in future.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy