[rpd] Soft Landing-SD (AFPUB-2017-V4-001-DRAFT-02)

[Mark Elkins]

On 11/04/2017 10:09, Mark Elkins wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2017 08:58, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>> Hello Owen,
>> Thanks for your feedback,
>> Comments are inline:-
>>
>> On 10 April 2017 at 13:21, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> I believe that the problem statement remains fundamentally flawed and that
>>> the resulting policy suffers from those flaws. Clarification in-line
>>> below...
>>> .
>>>
>>> Specifically, the current Softlanding Policy:
>>>
>>> Allows a maximum allocation size of a /13 in Phase 1. The authors feel this
>>> is too large based on average allocation size, and can be abused.
>>>
>>> Please define the perceived "abuse" and explain how it constitutes abuse.
>>> Note, I feel that use of loaded terms like "abuse" to describe "a result we
>>> don't like" is disingenuous and contrary to open and transparent policy
>>> development.
>> To abuse to use improperly, or to misuse. I don’t see why you think
>> this is a loaded term.
>>
>> On the meaning and use, we believe that Internet resources are
>> supposed to be used for the greater good of the AFRINIC community.
>> Based on staff analysis, 93% of the 1,373 v4 requests requests in the
>> last 5 years were for blocks smaller than a /16. As authors we believe
>> that any policy that favours the 7% of members at the expense of the
>> 93% is what is not  in the best interest of the greater AFRINIC
>> community.
>>
>> You have seen nefarious elements go as far as hijacking unused v4
>> prefixes, so telling ourselves that they won’t come for large chunks
>> of v4, if no limits are set, especially for this last pool, then we
>> would be burying our heads in the sand.
>>
>> However, we were careful with any restrictions. Based on our analysis
>> more than 93% of organization/requests in the past 5 years could be
>> served without a problem if this policy is passed, which represents
>> the greater AFRINIC community.
> Careful.
> So you are stating we are more concerned with Members rather than the
> people that they serve - the End Users. A large member will serve
> proportionally a large number of end users - and probably do it more
> efficiently than a small member.
>
> The only perceived abuse here is potentially abuse from their size - if
> they get more space explicitly to deprive smaller members for getting
> space in order to make competition difficult for smaller members. In
> truth, this should be the communities only worry. Reducing the time
> period (allocation and assignment period) that the IP's should be used
> by should help. Perhaps reduce this further from 8 to 6 months? Then
> after 6 months, people can go witch hunt if concerned?
>
> I see we now allow people to come back for a second /16 of IPv4
> addresses after three years. Perhaps make this two or even one year -
> especially if the allocation and assignment period is set to six months.
>
> Otherwise, as large members already have a large block of numbers, when
> they ask, they can ask for a large block. Small members don't like this
> - even although the large member goes on to properly use them to bring
> large groups of users on to the Internet. Outsiders may call this jealousy.
>
> The only thing I can think of is if we throttle the large members from
> not getting IPv4, they may implement and drive IPv6 to the advantage of
> the rest of us. As they have more money and I am small - maybe that's
> alright?
>
> I know we shouldn't tie IPv6 to the last /8 but if we did then use of
> IPv6 should be, the ISP has a IPv6 block, has put it in the routing
> table, answers DNS via IPv6, has mail delivery via IPv6  and web servers
> using IPv6 on their own network  - as a minimum requirement.

Idle thoughts, I assume that all the systems at AFRINIC are dual stacked
- so perhaps the only services at AFRINIC that should respond to IPv4
based requests are either brand new applications or applications for
IPv6. All other requests should only work if the applicant sends them
via IPv6.  :-)

-- 
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