Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Mon Aug 29 16:32:33 UTC 2016

Hi Nishal,
At 02:03 29-08-2016, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
>.. and when you reported this to afrinic, they said 

I did not report it.

><tl;dr>  my concern is the accuracy;  it's ok to make mistakes.
>it's not ok to repeat these.
>it's not ok to ignore them.

I agreed to exchange information with the 
researchers when they work on the next version of 
their paper as our past discussion was 
amicable.  The accuracy or mistakes (if there is any) does not affect me.

>fair enough;  but the article didn't discuss the 
>critical infrastructure component (the otherwise 
>functioning MIXP, in this case) but rather the 
>results of one ISP's peering policy, eh?

The article does not discuss about why the 
network was down for two days as that happened 
afterwards.  I would not describe an IX handling 
the level of traffic of one FTTH user as 
functional.  I would also not say that for an IX 
which is not keeping local traffic local as I do 
not wish to be the one explaining about that if 
there is an inquiry about the funds which were 
spent on the IX.  Should a /22 (IPv4) be reserved for a white elephant? :-)

S. Moonesamy  

More information about the RPD mailing list