Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
mayoye at seacom.mu
Wed Jul 12 17:27:13 UTC 2017
Well I believe every network has a way of resource usage, for us a
churned customer translates to a freed resource for use by any new
customer and if Afrinic ran an audit and realized that we do not meet
the % usage and fits in the policy, happy to have other users get
allocations as well.
The other 3 months story, you may ping me if there are any unresolved
issues in 3 months so that relevant teams can look into, but happy if we
do not deviate from the discussion.
On 7/12/17 11:02 AM, David Hilario wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> Let's say Seacom gets audited.
> Your company like any other organisation have customers coming and
> going and IP space utilisation can sometime drop, but especially
> create holes in your allocation.
> So out of your allocations, what would happen if tomorrow, you get
> audited by AFRINIC and AFRINIC decides it could be put to "better use"
> due to X% percentage being unused currently since the allocation was
> issued X years ago, by policy that space should be fully in use by
> now, even if they would do a partial reclaim of scattered /18s, /16s
> but maybe even smaller things like /22s across your whole range, would
> that be acceptable as an Audit result to your organisation, you would
> honestly accept to deaggregate and return space that could be put to
> use on your network in the coming years?
> Space that AFRINIC will never be able to re-issue to your organisation
> once depletion is completed?
> We heard the comment that you get 3 months to solve any issues.
> How would you solve the unused space dilemma within 3 months?
> Because this is what we are being confronted with right now, the
> re-evaluation of already issued resources, with de-registration as a
> goal on very subjective terms left to the "staff discretion".
> David Hilario
> IP Manager
> Larus Cloud Service Limited
> p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784
> f: +852 29888068
> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
> w: laruscloudservice.net
> e: d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net
> On 12 July 2017 at 09:34, Simon mayoye <mayoye at seacom.mu> wrote:
>> +1 Bill on this.
>> Well if issued resources by a registry, then resource review on a member is
>> essential. Anything else sounds fishy.
>> On 7/12/17 9:12 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> While I am not going to opine on the merits of the policy under discussion,
>> I’d like to draw attention to one of the assertions made in the discussion:
>> On Jun 26, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>> This policy is in direct conflict with transfer policy, if someone wants to
>> sell their address space, they surely not commit to use it with the original
>> purpose, should AFRINIC instead of allowing them to transfer the space, but
>> reclaim them and redistribute them for "better use"? If that is the case,
>> the transfer policy will have no use because of that.
>> I would just like to point out that the AfriNIC community does not exist to
>> serve the financial interests of those who wish to sell addresses, rather
>> than use them.
>> The AfriNIC community is the community of people who need IP addresses, in
>> order to route them and give people access to the Internet. The AfriNIC
>> policy process exists to serve those who wish to _use_ IP addresses, not
>> those who wish to profit from them at the expense of the community.
>> So, whatever your thoughts on the merits of this proposal, the fact that it
>> fails to serve the interests of speculators is not an argument against it.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD