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
Tue Aug 30 14:13:27 UTC 2016

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 "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".

> tells me that there's 
>network prefixes being announced at the IXP.
>tell me that there's live traffic going across the IXP.
>the members list at 
>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.

S. Moonesamy  

More information about the RPD mailing list