Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Tue Nov 8 18:53:43 UTC 2016
I find it pretty relevant to the discussion that the authors of this policy have space (v4 and v6) that is not announced and has not been announced for 5+ years, while attempting to create policy that will restrict people’s access to get space on the grounds that it is limited.
The AfriNIC policies at current are very clear – on application for space you have to show that you can use 50% of it within 6 months and all of it within 12 months. Unless WACREN has a very strange use case for globally unique space that is not announced that don’t know about – they are in clear violation of the CURRENT policies, while trying to implement new ones that will restrict others who are 100% in compliance who may need more space.
The same individuals who are also by the way coming out publically on this list in support of an audit policy, and making vague statements that they will submit to any review themselves.
So, if they TRULY support that audit policy which requires making public the result of any audit – here is a challenge I’ll issue – pre-empt the audit and tell this list what globally unique usage case they have for 75% of the v4 space that has never been announced and 100% of the v6 space that has never been announced. That or return it.
But yes – it is pretty relevant when people are pushing for policies that restrict others while (by appearances) not complying with current ones themselves. Of course as I have said, there are plenty of cases for globally unique non announced space – and this MAY be the case in which case they have done nothing wrong – but then I’m sure many of us would like to know what that case is.
From: Noah [mailto:noah at neo.co.tz]
Sent: 08 November 2016 21:44
To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
On 8 Nov 2016 21:10, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>> wrote:
> We WOULD need to have. just few years later (sorry, details, whatever
> number), IPv4 is going to end. it is not a question of _if_ but a
> question of _when_.
Not so fast.
You forget that just like the IPv4 Internet, the IPv6 Internet will also sponteneously developed. Nothing happens over night to so many fundamental factors.
Look at the history of Internet development across the world in each continent and what factors were at play per continent in fostering the Internet.
The small group of Internet Elites here in tend to undermine a lot of this other factors.
> And I think we all know examples of cases where people are unprepared
> and will be surprised - no matter whether it happens sooner or later.
I doubt any one will be suprised imho.
We had satellite for ages then the fiber optic came. We all embraced to new advancement and upgraded quick yet satelites are still being used in remote rural towns where the cable is hardly there.
> like this one:
> % Information related to '2001:43f8:1d0::/48'
> % No abuse contact registered for 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> inet6num: 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> netname: WACREN-v6
> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1> show route table inet6.0 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1>
> route-views6.routeviews.org<http://route-views6.routeviews.org>> sh bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> % Network not in table
> sorry to bring facts into this discussion.
I am sure wacren has their own reasons as to why some of that v6 is not lit.
But lets not use that as the basis to prove a point.
What is more important at least imho is the policies under discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD