[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

[Andrew Alston]

Abel, let me put this another way:

I remain opposed to any policy that tightens the limits on the amount of space that than organisation can get during the soft landing phase other than in a new comer phase where companies in this phase can get only ONE allocation and only if they have *NO* other resources, and that allocation is limited to a /22.

I remain opposed to the amount of space allocated for that being anything > /13

I remain opposed to any further critical infrastructure allocations that lockdown of space – since I believe these elements of critical infrastructure are already dealt with.

I remain opposed to tying soft landing allocations to anything to do with IPv6 – since there is absolutely zero evidence of the fact that companies who say “here is a plan that we are going to rollout v6” actually ever do anything about it and actually roll it out beyond sticking the block on some router for bgp announcement purposes.

I strongly believe that those who have need for space today to number their customers have done the work to build their networks and as such should be allowed to use the space that is available to number their customers.  Anything else does not end up only penalizing the ISP that has put in the work and effort to build their networks, but also penalizes the customers in the regions that have actually built the networks and where billions of dollars has been poured into building those networks.  I believe that to tighten restrictions in this manner promotes those who have not done the work and the effort to date at the expense of those who have put in the work and the effort and the money to build their networks and their customer base to the point where they can actually use the space today.

I believe that any attempt to prolong the life of V4 on this continent also leads us further down the path of digital divide with the rest of the world that is moving on.  I believe that to say that the developed ISPs can go and do v6 while the new comers can have the v4 is a foolish argument in the extreme and will also simply act as a catalyst to a further digital divide, leaving the new comers at a distinct disadvantage further down the line and end up opening the door for acquisition of those companies by those who have gone v6, expanded their customer base and are now looking for easy picking as those who have not gone v6 start to fail.

Hence, I stand opposed to any tightening of limits, I stand opposed to anything that ties soft landing to v6 in any way, I oppose anything that locks space for some unforeseen future use when v4 is already largely deprecated, and I believe that space should be used today to number the consumers who need the space today, rather than limiting those who need today, for the vague and unsubstantiated future dates when someone will need the space – with no guarantees that date will ever come.

Hope that answers your question

Andrew


From: abel ELITCHA [mailto:kmw.elitcha at gmail.com]
Sent: 26 March 2017 15:37
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>; AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at afrinic.net>
Cc: Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue



For the record - I stand opposed to the softlanding-bis policy for all the reasons I have stated time and again - and my substantive and valid objections have yet to be addressed by the authors of said policy.

Andrew

To be clear, what are you opposed to?  The softlanding-bis as is or one that is updated to reflect community feedback to the Co-chairs summary of consensus/recommendations?

--Abel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170326/0cd7409a/attachment.html>