Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jul 28 18:39:01 UTC 2017

> On Jul 28, 2017, at 03:00 , Noah <noah at> wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2017 10:17 a.m., "Frank Habicht" <geier at <mailto:geier at>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> On 7/28/2017 9:17 AM, Noah wrote:
> > We supporters of an updated Softlanding policy believe in the impact
> > that a public IP address can have on our peoples lives.
> ... but not when it sits in the bank (AfriNIC) - only if it gets used
> through delegation .... to RIR members
> They will not sit there forever, they will continue to be delegated as per the recommendations in the draft policy.

The recommendations in the draft policy are that they be speculatively held for possible future use which may or may not ever actually materialize.

Repeating this to each and every point would be tedious for both me and the community, so I will spare them…

> > The IP address bas enables our friends who come to tour our beautiful
> > continent access to more local information about our various countries
> > thereby enabling us collect revenue and create jobs and build our
> > hospitality industry.
> not when the status in the AfriNIC DB is "available"
> Yet they will be available in the IPv4 transfer market.

Addresses available in the transfer market were likely in use in the past. Even if they were not, they were previously issued by AfriNIC.

Addresses available in the transfer market probably aren’t in use right now (though they might be).
Addresses available in AfriNIC are definitely not in use (unless they’ve been hijacked).

There’s no logic in this argument that supports keeping the addresses on the shelf and out of reach.

> > Lets not kid ourselves. As the vendors continue fixing the IPv6 software
> > stacks, IPv4 still works and IPv4 will not be less useful anytime soon
> > because vendors across the board still make a killing out of IPv4.
> But some time IPv4 addresses will be less useful than now.
> Yes and their uselessness will depend on the enviroment in which they are used.

??? Are you even reading what you write? If they are used, then they aren’t useless, by definition.

> Do we want that to happen sooner or later?
> When you plant a seed, does the seed turn into tree in a fortnight?

I hardly think 20 years is a fortnight.

> > Big telecoms have invested in legacy equipmemts and still returning
> > their investments.
> Do they want to keep more IPv4 addresses longer with AfriNIC?
> I think not.
> Obviously note but yet other RIR still keep them and generate revenue from then courtesy of the IPv4 transfer market and previous memberships.

What? None of the other RIRs is protecting as much of their free pool as aggressively as is proposed here. 

ARIN has only a small reservation for IPv6 transition (</10) and a small reservation for critical infrastructure.
APNIC has some fraction of a /8 remaining for issuing /22s to new entrants and they have (IIRC) since relaxed that policy to allow periodic additional allocations/assignments of additional /22s. I believe the situation in RIPE is similar (periodic /22s available from a small reservation).

The only revenue any RIR gets from the transfer market is from transfer fees which are essentially fees for recording the transfer.

Otherwise, the RIRs get the same (generally, though amounts differ) annual fees from their subscribers and end users as is practiced in AfriNIC.

I’m not sure whether your statement is completely misguided (as it appears), or simply so poorly worded that the intended meaning cannot be parsed.

> > Big internet companies that depends on global numbers which are mainly
> > still accessible via the IPv4 internet wont risk loosing this market.
> Do they want more users connected on IPv4 this year or in 5 years?
> Ask one telecom that roled out IPv6 in Africa to its users only to come to the realization that millions of their end user devices dont support IPv6 as they had thought even though some Ivy class users had updated better versions.

I’m not sure what an “Ivy class user” is.

However, there’s at least one major telecom that has rolled out IPv6 to its end users with great success, so perhaps the end users aren’t really the problem so much as the ISP in question. Hard to say from the little information provided here.

> > Some startups will be seeking addresses to atleast support critical
> > infrastucture like DNS and Web servers if there is none from Afrinic,
> > you be forced to pay more expensively from those who have the space.
> That above is the one part I agree with.
> Its a fact.

Eventually, we will run out of petroleum, too. Some users will be forced to buy
cars which don’t depend on petroleum or at least will be unable to operate their
petroleum based vehicles.

When a finite resource runs out, some users are, by definition, left without.

What is your point?

> > There million dollar IPv4 transfer market is here to stay and late
> > entreprenuers and startups will pay more expensively for an IP address
> > post IPv4 exhaustion which could potentially discourage investment in
> > the IP related investments.
> and the IPs will be more costly if we artificially keep more IPv4
> addresses out of reach.
> Costly from Afrinic as the one evaluating and delegating or costly when the price of an IP addresses is determine by the scarcity of the IP address in the transfer market.?

If this policy is implemented as written, it will create an artificial shortage, raising the market price of IPv4 addresses in the market.

> > We can deplete fast but if any one of you tomorrow wants IP addresses
> > and cant get them from Afrinic, you will be forced to dance to the IPv4
> > brokers pricing.
> Fine. Just don't deny to LIRs what they need today.
> Afrinic will not deny a justified request for allocation from the last pool as per the policy proposal.

But it will deny many justified requests for allocation because of this proposal. This claim is utterly false and misleading.

The problem here is in how y ou are defining “justified request”. You are using this policies definition of what is allowed as “justified request”.

The reality is that there are many justified requests which would be allowed under present policy and denied under this policy. The only reason you would consider them unjustified is because of your desire to protect speculative future IPv4 consumers at the expense of present need.

> > You will be forced to look up to IPv4 brokers  for address space and the
> > IPv4 broker will not trade space the same way Afrinic does.
> Yes. It's a limited resource. Life is really not fair sometimes.
> Yet we can do something about it to make life fair also sometimes.

This proposal isn’t more fair. It’s just shifting the unfairness around from one group to another group that might not even exist.

There are two possible outcomes from this proposal:

1.	The same level of unfairness as current policy if enough of these speculative startus emerge to consume the entire remaining free pool relatively quickly.
2.	An increased level of unfairness as addresses lay in waste sitting on the AfriNIC shelf waiting for startups that never come into being.

So, the best case of this policy is that it doesn’t increase unfairness. The most likely outcome is that it does.

There may be situations where we can reduce unfairness, but this isn’t one of them.

> > IPv4 is still relevant than you will ever imagine save for the rhetoric
> > around how IPv4 is legacy and not needed meanwhile millions of dollars
> > are exchanging hands in the IPv4 tranfer market.
> I agree it's needed, so let's give out IPs if they are needed.
> And they will be given.

With significant exceptions if this policy is implemented.

> I can tell you one organisation that probably won't need any more IP
> addresses than they currently use themselves: AfriNIC.
> But they have more in the bank, and have the job to give them to members
> who use them.
> Obviously but we are saying let that be in need basis.

Current policy is need basis. This proposal goes beyond need basis to apply additional restrictions that are unfair.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list