[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Sun Apr 2 18:59:00 UTC 2017

Owen,

IMHO

As far as i am concerned, the internet routing table still indicates that
IPv4 (basically NAT) is still the superior source address until networks
(esp CGN folk) upgrade.

No content provider the likes of Facebook, Google etc will pull a Y2K and
risk the traffic they generate into their business today by shutting IPv4
which mostly comes from Telecoms/CGN.

Fact is the availability of the v4 transfer market makes it even worse and
the very reason I am in support of tightening soft-landing restrictions in
our region unlike those who call for softening and depleting IPv4 at this
stage and even go head to further advocate for more inbound tranfers
instead of promoting IPv6 adoption.

Then you have cloud business proponents who cant resist the urge of IPv$ so
they can cash in without any proof of physical infrastucture in this
continent.

PS: Am not an co-author of any new proposal on softlanding, you must have
mistaken me for Douglas.

Noah

On 2 Apr 2017 7:55 p.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> The fact is that most of what we seek is still out there seated on some
> iron that still runs IPv4.
>
>
> This doesn’t parse well. Could you try clarifying your exact meaning here?
>
> If you mean “Most of what we see is still running on hardware that is
> incapable of IPv6 support”, then I find that hard to believe. I can believe
> that some of what we see fits that statement, but not most.
>
> If you mean that many providers still don’t support IPv6, then yes, that’s
> reality, but that’s a very problematic reality and I think we, as a
> community need to look long and hard at ways to alter that reality soon
> lest it become an additional form of isolation between the rest of the
> world and this community.
>
> The remaining space can still help those without or new late entrants into
> the game as they will need source addresses for the routes what they will
> be developing as Internet expansion sponteneously expand across the
> continent.
>
>
> IPv4 has become like an addiction at this point. We all know that failing
> to deploy IPv6 is bad for us in a big way, yet we are so tied to IPv4 for a
> variety of reasons that we are loathe to consider the fact that at some
> point there simply isn’t enough address space in IPv4 and there really will
> be IPv4 have-nots. In fact, there really already are many IPv4 have-nots.
> Look at the number of people in India behind double NATs for years and the
> other places where CGN is now beginning to be deployed. Look at the number
> of universities in Africa that are using NAT rather than getting real
> address space to meet their needs even though real address space is still
> readily available to them.
>
> I’m at a point where I have to question whether blocking access to IPv4
> addresses to users that need it now in favor of some possible need for
> late-entrants or newcomers later is truly a service to those late-entrants
> or newcomers vs. a disservice to the entire community.
>
> IPv4 is already painful. The reality is that the longer we allow it to
> persist as the lingua franca of the internet, the longer and more severe
> the pain will become. Yes, an abrupt transition today is non-feasible, but
> do we really need to work to further artificially extend the transition
> beyond even the level of delay which is already inherent in the process?
>
> Eventually, competition and scramble for more subscribers will motivate
> Afro-Centric Telecoms to come out of their cave and rapidly deploy IPv6 on
> their iron.
>
>
> Will it? I think that extending the life of IPv4 address space will only
> delay this process without providing any real benefit to the community.
>
> Until then, I still see a lot of relevance in restricting the Softlanding
> space and we have a SL-BIS policy before us that we can further improve.
>
>
> I agree with McTim. I do not feel there is a compelling reason to amend
> the existing soft landing policy at this time. I don’t feel that the -bis
> proposal benefits the community and I see a number of drawbacks to it. I’m
> not enthusiastic about the other proposal either.
>
> The latest proposal from you and Seun is a substantial improvement, but I
> still do not believe that it provides benefit that exceeds the unintended
> consequences, so I remain opposed to it as well.
>
> Owen
>
>
> Noah
>
>
>
> Noah
>
> On 31 Mar 2017 2:42 p.m., "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barack,
>>
>> While rough consensus may be easier to achieve, I do not think even
>> that is possible in this situation.
>>
>> The Big Picture is that we spent may years crafting and editing the
>> finer points of the current SL policy.
>>
>> Now, there seems to be 2 groups who whose views are in direct
>> opposition to each other about how to change this policy.
>>
>> Reviewing both "problem statements", I don't find any problems that
>> absolutely need fixing from my perspective.
>>
>> Andrew's a, b, c, d from above were all well known and assumed when we
>> wrote the policy.  The same is true of the bis- "problem statement", I
>> can't really find any "problems" that are compelling (enough for me)
>> to open up the SL to amendments.
>>
>> One common area of agreement from both parties is "get v6 deployed",
>> maybe we should be focusing on that?
>>
>> I do think that we will be UNable to find even rough consensus on -bis
>> and that seemed to be the case with overhaul before it was withdrawn.
>>
>> In short, I do not support -bis, nor would I support an overhaul
>> unless Arsene and Mark can give us a problem statement that identifies
>> a real problem that can be readily addressed (pun intended) via policy
>> change.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> McTim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Barrack Otieno
>> <otieno.barrack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > Many thanks Andrew, if consensus is complicated we could try rough
>> > consensus, i think every proponent is right in one way or the other, we
>> just
>> > need a middle ground that is acceptable to all of us. I agree with the
>> > co-chairs that we can have consensus if we choose to do so. Can the
>> other
>> > proposal be sent in the same spirit? The status quo is  good but we
>> should
>> > not give up on engaging each other. Let us accept or refuse the
>> proposals
>> > based on the merits and shortcomings. Happy to contribute in this effort
>> > alongside Arsene.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > On Mar 31, 2017 9:56 AM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.c
>> om>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Let me state our problem statement from the authors of the withdrawn
>> >> proposal.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that restricting the amount of space that can be
>> allocated
>> >> in this late stage has the following effects:
>> >>
>> >> a.) It disadvantages the areas that have already got networks and are
>> >> ready to connect consumers but can't do so because they can't get
>> adequate
>> >> space
>> >> b.) It disadvantages the consumer who is in an area with network
>> coverage
>> >> but ends up stuck behind NAT and other mechanisms which hurt him
>> because
>> >> space allocation is being artificially constrained
>> >> c.) It increases the digital divide by creating a false sense that v4
>> is
>> >> still current and will continue to last - while the rest of the world
>> moves
>> >> to V6
>> >> d.) It assists only people who have not yet invested in and build their
>> >> own networks - at the expense of people who have already done the work
>> >>
>> >> Furthermore:
>> >>
>> >> a.) Any tie back to v6 "plans" has proven to be totally and utterly
>> >> ineffective in actually getting people to do v6 - all it results in is
>> >> people putting an allocation on one router for announcement purpose and
>> >> saying look, we are doing v6, while the consumer never sees a v6
>> address
>> >> b.) Tying up resources for critical infrastructure at this point makes
>> >> zero sense - critical infrastructure is by and large already catered
>> for in
>> >> other policies - with the exception of TLD's, and how much space are
>> you
>> >> reserving for them?  A TLD should not require more than a /24, and
>> there are
>> >> only 54 countries on the continent - that amounts to no more than a /17
>> >> worth of space - why are we trying to tie up /12s?
>> >> c.) Restrictions on allocations without being willing to implement an
>> >> inbound transfer policy that allows people to get space they need when
>> they
>> >> cannot get it via AfriNIC is nothing short of insanity, it puts the
>> larger
>> >> operators who need space at risk of being able to get NONE, while
>> giving
>> >> zero benefit to anyone - and the alternative to this is that it forces
>> those
>> >> entities to go and join another RIR, at additional expense to the
>> operator
>> >> and at the expense of revenue to AfriNIC
>> >>
>> >> The withdrawn policy effectively called for the repeal of the soft
>> landing
>> >> policy - the bis policy effectively calls for a tightening of the
>> policy -
>> >> these are diametrically opposed viewpoints and diametrically opposed
>> >> philosophies.  This is the reason why I do not believe that there will
>> be
>> >> consensus on this and why I believe we are wasting our time - because
>> there
>> >> is a large segment of the community that will simply not accept the
>> >> tightening of restrictions in soft landing, and there is an equal
>> segment of
>> >> the community that will not accept the repeal of the soft landing or a
>> >> loosening of the restrictions.  Which segment of the community has the
>> right
>> >> philosophy and the right approach, well, time will tell on this, but
>> its
>> >> immaterial to the discussion - the fact is - we're deadlocked on this
>> and
>> >> that’s ok, lets accept it, accept the status quo and move on.
>> Anything else
>> >> is a waste of time and distracting from other far more important
>> issues in
>> >> my view... like the lack of inbound transfer policy for when we truly
>> do
>> >> need space and don't have any.
>> >>
>> >> Restricting the allocation sizes in the soft landing is not the answer
>> -
>> >> and certainly not if you do not give the members the ability to get
>> what
>> >> space they need from alternate sources.
>> >>
>> >> So - we can continue down this path, and I'm ok with that - however, I
>> >> believe we're wasting our time because I do not believe we will see any
>> >> consensus on this - not on the floor, not in last call, and not before
>> all
>> >> the space is gone.  But the PDP Is clear, anyone has the right to have
>> >> policy put before the floor and to be heard, and that must be
>> respected,
>> >> however much we oppose what is being said, and however much we believe
>> that
>> >> no consensus will be found.  It is, under the PDP process, the
>> decision of
>> >> the authors to decide if they want to continue wasting the time of this
>> >> community or not, and the decision is theirs and should be respected -
>> but
>> >> in turn, the opposition to what is being said must also be heard and
>> >> respected - it goes both ways.
>> >>
>> >> I remain opposed to anything that tightens restrictions
>> >>
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: 31 March 2017 05:37
>> >> To: SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd>
>> >> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>> >>
>> >> Hi Sami,
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I can't even recall the problem statements of these 2
>> >> proposals.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps we could have them posted to the list to see if there is any
>> area
>> >> of commonality at that level?
>> >>
>> >> After all, if there is zero common ground between the 2 problems that
>> >> these proposals aim to fix, and instead diametric opposition, then
>> there is
>> >> little point in carrying on a stalemate.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> McTim
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:16 PM, SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks McTim for the reminder
>> >> > However, as co-chairs our mandate is to condider every single propsal
>> >> > comming from the community and work to foster a condtructive
>> discussion,
>> >> > this necessitates all members to objectivly discuss the ideas and
>> only good
>> >> > ideas can be further developed to a policy.
>> >> > I think ourandate is also to find a middle group to BUILD the
>> >> > consensus so we have to be positive and innovative rather than just
>> >> > rapporteurs- you know better than me in this regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Sicerely
>> >> >
>> >> > Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
>> >> > Sudan University of Science and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box
>> >> > 11111-407
>> >> > email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
>> >> > Mob: +249122045707
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Sami, all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I just want to remind everyone that "no consensus, status quo
>> remains"
>> >> >> is a perfectly valid outcome of the PDP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not every policy proposal needs to pass in some form or other.  That
>> >> >> a proposal fails to gain consensus is not an indictment of the PDP,
>> >> >> rather a validation of the PDP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> McTim
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:02 PM, SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
>> >> >> > Dear Marcus,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > First of all YES we really sure what we are trying to organize !
>> >> >> > Second, Mark Elkins is on of the co-authors of many other
>> proposals
>> >> >> > - as he claimed -, the one you particularly mention is not an
>> >> >> > active proposal for the time being Third, as we stated we welcome
>> >> >> > any volunteer to contribute to solve the issues we addressed in
>> our
>> >> >> > justifications to our call,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please help us to focus only on ideas and proposals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Best Regards,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor Sudan University of Science
>> >> >> > and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
>> >> >> > email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
>> >> >> > Mob: +249122045707
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ________________________________
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From: "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <madomey at hotmail.com>
>> >> >> > To: "SamiSalih" <sami at ntc.gov.sd>, "rpd" <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:19:25 PM
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dear Co-chairs,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > While reading your email, I am wondering whether you are really
>> >> >> > sure of what you are trying to organize. Have you considered the
>> >> >> > following points?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1 - Mark Elkins is one of the co-authors of the softlanding
>> >> >> > overhaul
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2- The co-authors of the softlanding-bis proposal which is still
>> in
>> >> >> > the PDWG track  said  ".... we are available for any further
>> >> >> > actions required from us" in their response to your  7 days call.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Some thoughts for reflection!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Marcus
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ________________________________
>> >> >> > From: SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd>
>> >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:03:11 AM
>> >> >> > To: rpd
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dear PDWG,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We appreciate your active discussion regarding the soft landing
>> >> >> > policy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is to declare the end of the Seven Days comment period on
>> >> >> > developing a common proposal according to the points commonly
>> >> >> > agreed before whether in the RPD or at PPMs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So far we have Mark Elkins and Arsène Tungali as the only
>> >> >> > volunteers. We hope they can edit the commonly agreed view in a
>> new
>> >> >> > policy update proposal document and work with other community
>> >> >> > members including authors of previous proposals that wish to lend
>> >> >> > their experience.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Best Regards,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > PDWG Co-Chairs
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ________________________________
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From: "Honest Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>
>> >> >> > To: "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at forum.org.ng>
>> >> >> > Cc: "rpd" <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> >> >> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:49:22 PM
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hello Dewole
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It has been suggested to take the points which have consensus on
>> >> >> > the wide variety and get an editor to come up with a new version
>> >> >> > if we really do not want the current authors to do it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Best regards
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2017-03-27 8:52 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The proposal "already in the PDP" (as you put it) deals with a
>> >> >> >> wide variety of areas. That collection of areas has not found
>> >> >> >> consensus. If the authors choose to whittle the proposal down to
>> >> >> >> those areas that the community largely agrees on, the co-chairs
>> >> >> >> would not need to point out areas that volunteers can adopt and
>> put
>> >> >> >> forward.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Although proposals (once submitted to the RPD list) are supposed
>> >> >> >> to be owned by the community and not the authors, the current
>> >> >> >> definition/implementation of the AFRINIC PDP does not promote
>> that
>> >> >> >> enough. I stand to be corrected but I think that is why we find
>> >> >> >> ourselves in this logjam today.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The submission presented by co-chairs a week ago was to allow a
>> >> >> >> chance to do things the collaborative way. A chance to disconnect
>> >> >> >> from whatever sentiments exist and tackle policy issues (which is
>> >> >> >> why we are here).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I fail to see what makes you think the co-chairs are focusing on
>> >> >> >> authors rather than policy.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Dewole.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos and autocorrect
>> >> >> >> strangeness.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 26 Mar 2017, at 8:52 PM, Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> >> >> >> <honest1989 at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi Dewole,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2017-03-26 18:37 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> There is more to benefit from collaborating on a single draft
>> >> >> >>> rather than spewing out multiple proposals.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Agreed! So why are you asking for new proposals when there is
>> >> >> >> already one in PDP.  Co-chairs need to focus on policy not
>> authors.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>  Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > RPD mailing list
>> >> >> > RPD at afrinic.net
>> >> >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > RPD mailing list
>> >> >> > RPD at afrinic.net
>> >> >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> McTim
>> >> >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> >> >> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> McTim
>> >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route
>> >> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> RPD mailing list
>> >> RPD at afrinic.net
>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> RPD mailing list
>> >> RPD at afrinic.net
>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170402/823c0ac8/attachment-0001.html>