Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Inbound Policy

fransossen at fransossen at
Mon Dec 5 13:19:44 UTC 2016

Hi all,
All and all, transfers will happen one way or another, declared as allocation transfers from one LIR to another, the point of this policy, declared as assignments or sub-allocations, that can already be done today so nothing new.
If transfers are not allowed, undeclared transfers will happen, where some organisation may be using large chunk of address space without registering those in the Database, the purpose of the RIR and its associated Database then becomes questionable.
So regulating the transfers through policy is a good idea.Out of region transfers will happen as well, no one prevents an AFRINIC member to open up an LIR in the RIPE Region and get a transfer to their membership over there, so rejecting out of region transfer will eventually only hurt the region and finances of the AFRINIC.
You do not have to see all transfers as IPs going from hoarders/harvesters to LIRs in need, those transfers have large financial transactions behind them. This in itself is a motivation and people are squeezing and NAT'ing their resources to the max to allow for themselves to free up what is valuable resources and transfer them away, in a sense, they degrade their own network to capitalise on the needs of others.
The bad part as mentioned by others, AFRINIC to AFRINIC transfers are directly in conflict with the RSA where transfers are specifically mentioned as not allowed other than as part of merger and acquisitions.
And now for the very bad part, since "inbound out of region transfer policy" was rejected, the transfer market in AFRINIC region will be very different from the rest of the world and potentially even nastier than elsewhere.
Without the potential influx of address space from out of region, the whole AFRINIC market will exist on its own, as a bubble detached from the world, allowing the people that are ready and willing to transfer to other members to jack up the prices to whatever level they want!As they are the only source of IPv4 address and no external competition can be brought in to lower the prices, I can see the few actors in the market already rubbing their hands at the deals they can make between each other and fixing a minimum prices within this region to ensure maximum profits for their "broker" services.
RIRs already function within an almost monopoly system divided by region, now we will enable a cartel to form within the monopoly.
The possibility of transferring resources into the region would in itself had at least leveled up the prices with current international market rate in IP transfers, without that, everyone is now left to the harsh and maximum monetisation possible of the few that are willing and able to transfer away. 

Great for the sellers selling large block to large entities in need of hundreds of thousands of IPs, large entities tend not to care about money too much (purposefully exaggerated statement unless you are google, amazon or similar then it remains true).Horrible for smaller organisations that only need a small range like a /22 or even smaller for some business critical infrastructure expansion. Transfers generally already only benefit larger organisations, since transfers also have a large financial cost attached to them, organisations willing to seek a transfer do this out of desperation or too much money and easy way out. But smaller organisation are now priced out even before the transfer market begins, through the fact that only one of the transfer policies was passed through, neither would had been better than just one, both would had been best.
David Hilario

Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app 

    On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:50 AM, SamiSalih <sami at> wrote:

I need just a simple clarification on my below logic

1- Part of this region see a need to this policy now
2- other part see we will need it later on (may be next week)
3- no one justify any harm to our region if this implemented now

so in favor of the people who need this policy now why we are opposing? even if those are just very few organizations.

From: "Maye Diop" <mayediop at>

To: "SamiSalih" <sami at>
Cc: "Mark Elkins" <mje at>, "rpd" <rpd at>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:48:41 AM
Subject: Re: [rpd] Inbound Policy

Dear Sami,Transition will take time and I did not understand the urge of this proposal.Best Regards
2016-11-29 8:38 GMT+00:00 SamiSalih <sami at>:

Dear Maye Diop,

Would you please justify your position


Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
Sudan University of Science and Technology
Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
email: sami.salih at
Mob: +249122045707 

From: "Maye Diop" <mayediop at>
To: "Mark Elkins" <mje at>
Cc: "rpd" <rpd at>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:34:14 AM
Subject: Re: [rpd] Inbound Policy

Dear All,Thanks for authors for this proposal and presentation.
I don't support this proposal policy.Best Regards,

2016-11-29 8:28 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <mje at>:

I support this policy.

I was quite surprised by people's comments at the microphone - which
seemed to be more being against the proposed than the policy itself.

Logic should dictate that this policy passes.
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

RPD mailing list
RPD at

Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D

RPD mailing list
RPD at

Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D

RPD mailing list
RPD at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list