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

[sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]

Hi Nishal,
At 05:06 30-08-2016, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
>i would describe the IX with at least three 
>peers, that's happily passing the frames of willing participants as functional.
>if you don't like your ISPs policies, vote with your wallet..

The "vote with your wallet" may be applicable in 
the United States.  It is not applicable at my location.

>to be clear, you do realise that it takes *ISPs* 
>that are willing to peer, to "keep traffic 
>local".  if a particular ISP, does not want to 
>peer, the IXP isn't going to magically fix your packet's trajectory.

According to http://pages.au.int/axis/ixp "The 
primary role is to keep local Internet traffic 
within local infrastructure".  The question which 
the press will ask is why funds were disbursed 
for a project if there is a low probability of "keeping traffic local".

>https://lg.mixp.org tells me that there's 
>network prefixes being announced at the IXP.
>statistics 
>from         http://www.mixp.org/#statistics 
>tell me that there's live traffic going across the IXP.
>the members list at http://www.mixp.org/#members 
>shows me what looks like likely real peers.
>
>your complaint seems to be about one ISP's 
>peering policy.  it's probably best to take that 
>up with the ISPs directly.  i don't think RPD can assist you, though.

I am not complaining about one ISP's peering 
policy.  Section 3.9.1 of a proposal states that 
"critical infrastructure" is, among others, 
IXPs.  I don't think that an IXP which has been 
down for two days could be described as "critical".

In case the mailing list might be curious about 
whether I have a conflict of interest in this 
matter, I'll mention that the only interest I 
have is that it is local to me.  I (or any 
company I work for) do not have had any direct or 
indirect financial interest in the matter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy