[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Kevin Kamonye]

Hi David,

I will start with your question.

Does that mean that any organisation that already holds address space
registered to them cannot become an LIR in AFRINIC and expand to the
African market regardless if what they currently have is an assignment,
allocation or even legacy space registered in another RIR?

The existing policy that we seek to amend is at least very clear in its
intentions (see below). I see the point that you are raising but we cannot
create policy on the basis of trying to accommodate poor planning by any
organisation(s).

2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
In order to ensure a *smooth transition to IPv6*, AfriNIC's pool should be
managed to provide members with address space after the IPv4 pool is
depleted. This will help in maintaining IPv4 networks while deploying IPv6
networks - a practice that characterizes the transition period...

Noah, thank you for introducing the below perspective. I think it is
certainly worth consideration.

We have countries in the Afrinic Region  that are faced with years of civil
unrest and political conflict and are yet to be pacified whose Internet
development is at its lowest levels today and could require obsolete IPv4
resources in the nearest future to take off.

Now, I will ask that we take a moment to pause and use the below statement
and how the conflict of interest 'mention'  against Andrew was casually
done as examples as to how we seem to be diverging from the point.

​
There are no restrictions whatsoever - except perhaps mistakenly *in some*
*people's heads*....

This is not the way to try to build consensus. It is also certainly not at
the level that an *ordinary* techie like myself would have expected to find
at this forum where I know we have some of the topmost individuals from the
various related fields.

So, I will take a moment to appreciate the factors/context that advised the
formulation of the proposals in AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT03. This work was
done by esteemed members of this community with the noble intention of
ensuring fairness in the allocation of the referenced resources. The
concern that I have is that while it is important to protect our resources
from abuse, we should not introduce complications in the allocation process
that have the potential to create a very fertile environment for discord to
flourish within the community.at that *crucial* *last* phase. This proposal
is actually more complicated than the existing policy and this is rarely
ever a good thing, even just out of principle.

Instead, we would ideally need to have created a very supportive and
collaborative v6-deployment-framework as we all work on the final stages of
going fully v6 - and yes v6 will happen either way. We all know this.

So, where we are now is that I see us trying to entrench ourselves into two
camps mostly based on the wrong issue - v6. I will say that there is no
convincing data that anyone would be able to provide to support any claims
that either proposals in their current form would significantly
encourage/accelerate the *utilisation* of v6. Based on this, I will request
the authors of the two draft proposals to edit out any mention of v6 and
restrict ourselves to discussing the main point as has been aptly captured
by the subject of this thread.

Afterwards, we can continue to separately push for the adoption of v6
either through specific policy proposals or individual/ community-backed
activism.

Regards,

*Kevin*


On 9 November 2016 at 19:19, <fransossen at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10:49 PM, Dewole Ajao <
> dewole at forum.org.ng> wrote:
> > Good day,
>
> Thank you for this summary of current and potential future policy.
>
>
> For AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01
> https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/1623-soft-landing-overhaul
>
> I have some remarks regarding the definition of "New Entrant":
>
> "New Entrant - Ether a member or new member that at the time of
> application had no previous IPv4 allocations or assignments made to them by
> AFRINIC, and were not holders of legacy IPv4 space or other IPv4 space
> sourced either through a potential transfer market or other RIR."
>
>
> Especially the part after the mention of resources that were issued
> directly by AFRINIC "and were not holders of legacy IPv4 space or other
> IPv4 space sourced either through a potential transfer market or other RIR"
>
> Does that mean that any organisation that already holds address space
> registered to them cannot become an LIR in AFRINIC and expand to the
> African market regardless if what they currently have is an assignment,
> allocation or even legacy space registered in another RIR?
>
> So the likes of Netflix or other content providers would not be able to
> enter into the African market?
>
> This would not only limit content providers, but IXPs, ISPs basically any
> currently established organisation having any Internet related business
> would be barred from joining AFRINIC as a member in order to get an IPv4
> allocation for their African operations.
> It would also be a very difficult policy to enforce.
>
> Cheers,
> David Hilario
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161109/263fc833/attachment-0001.html>