[rpd] Soft Landing Review

Fri Dec 9 18:25:52 UTC 2016

Hi,

During the last PDWG discussions, authors of the competing  softlanding
proposals  agreed to work together on how  to address the changes  to the
existing softlanding  policy and come back to the PDPWG . Why this suddenly
new enthusiastic thread.
When can we expect minutes of the last meeting please?

Thanks.

--Abel

2016-12-08 13:55 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>:

> Thanks Seun - comments inline.
>
> On 07/12/2016 13:36, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > offlist
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za
> > <mailto:mje at posix.co.za>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 07/12/2016 02:49, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
> >     <mailto:sm%2Bafrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > I have simplified the following; I have also not considered some
> >     > of the input to the discussions:  There has been input from two
> >     > "internet service providers" only.  Given that there is only 1.38
> >     > IPv4 /8 available, can a decision which will affect the entire.
> >     > service region be taken?
> >
> >     I've been looking at the current Soft Landing proposal - the one
> that is
> >     in existence and the one that I contributed a little bit to (thanks
> >     Douglas!).
> >
> >     Essentially:-
> >
> >     Phase 1:
> >     When we hit the last /8, Phase 1 reduces the max size of an
> >     allocation/assignment from /10 to /13. It also carves off a /12 for
> >     unforeseen use. This continues until we have a /11 left.
> >     This will allow for 7 x /11's and a /12 - if people choose the
> largest
> >     possible sizes. This will still take a while to go through.
> >
> >     Phase 2:
> >     Allow people to get up to a /22. People can come back multiple times.
> >     There are 2048 of these /22 blocks available. This would take a
> while to
> >     burn through, simply because the process is a bit slow.
> >
> >     Then we are finished.
> >
> >                           -------------
> >
> >     However - the Unforeseen /12 could still be used.
> >     We already have reserves for IXP's and Critical infrastructure.
> >
> >     I'd like to see a revision that there is then a Phase 3:
> >
> >     That the /12 can be given out in /22's (there are 1024 of these) but
> >     only to people with a total of less than a /21 (including what they
> ask
> >     for). ie - New people could come back once. This I believe will last
> >     multiple years.
>
>
> > SO: I will add +1 to this with a little edit.
> > Only to people with existing space less than a /21 in total (including
> their transfers).
>
> This I think should be anyone (whether New or Existing) can come back -
> but can only have up to a total of /21 space. If they already have a /21
> or more space - then they must go somewhere else (e.g. Transfer)
> You seem to imply only members with existing space can get from the last
> /12 ??
>
> > I like to come back limit as well.
>
> I'm suggesting no return limit - but a limit on their total accumulated
> space (/21).
>
>
> >     I don't believe we need any further reserves.
> >
> > SO: I agree based on what you've proposed above
>
> :-)
>
>
> >     We only need to last another two or three years.
> >
> >
> > SO: I don't think its necessary to project this. I think the important
> > thing is that resource is available for x number of years and would also
> > address any possible unforeseen(if it in anyway exist) need.
>
> I wouldn't put "we only need to last another 2/3 years" in a proposal. I
> think its important though to (gut-feel) estimate where this will take
> us, so people understand that this is not a "quick burn".
>
>
> >     Lastly - any addresses from Phase 2 or 3 can never be transferred,
> (M&A
> >     included) and must be returned to AFRINIC for re-deployment.
>
>
> > SO: Actually i would prefer that be added to the entire last block /8.
> > That will make things easier and neater.
>
> Could do.
> Would be interesting to see how other people feel.
> My reason for only Phase 2 and 3 though was this would be more
> equivalent to a /8 from the other regions in proportion to how much
> total space we have.  Phase 1 is almost business as usual. Phase 2/3 is
> where it really starts to hurt. I believe returns from phase 2/3 will
> actually keep us going even longer.
>
>
> > Fyi, if you need a co-author to this i can be available.
>
> Thank you for your support!
>
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >     Thoughts?
> >
> >     --
> >     Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> >     mje at posix.co.za <mailto:mje at posix.co.za>       Tel: +27.128070590
> >     <tel:%2B27.128070590>  Cell: +27.826010496 <tel:%2B27.826010496>
> >     For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:
> https://ftth.posix.co.za
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     RPD mailing list
> >     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >     /Seun Ojedeji,
> >     Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> >     web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> >     Mobile: +2348035233535
> >     //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> >     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
> >
> >         Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
> >         action!
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>

-- 
--Abel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161209/cf08076c/attachment-0001.html>