[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[fransossen at yahoo.com]

Hi Kevin and Andrew,




On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:52 PM, Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>

> 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).

Your answers make it clear with the intent of the wording, those who already have something, regardless of origins, must stretch their already acquired resources to expand to new markets and services and allow those who have none to get some.

This very fair for all the future organisations (at least 512 @ /22 per organisation + recovered space) within Africa that do not exist yet and will be able to at least get started using some IPv4.

I would love to be able to say that this is not needed as IPv6 is the only viable long term large scale IP solution, but we have yet to see it become true and viable without some form of IPv4 to connect to the "legacy" IPv4 network so it makes sense.


Looking at the what happened at the other RIR levels though, no one has found the magic bullet to promote IPv6 via Policies and the reservation only allows newcomers to enter, but will not promote per se the way to ensure IPv6 is finally deployed and viable and will only give a small breathing space the some newcomers.


And Andrew, I see what you mean with existing global organisations that are already indeed using their resources across the globe and are forced to do so in an increasingly manner since their respective RIRs are in runout mode. 
Putting that blockade forces them to either further streamline their existing resources, or rent from local existing LIRs with available resources to assign. Just like current AFRINIC organisations that are currently expanding out of continent have to do at the moment I guess when coming to RIPE or ARIN Regions.


Cheers,
David Hilario