[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Andrew Alston]

Mark,

Is that not what we did when we passed the original soft landing policy – which took years to debate?

I will admit – if I could I would repeal even that – but I believe that it is a fair compromise position as it stands right now – it balances the extremes of the softlanding-bis with the extremes of complete repeal.  That was yet another reason that myself and my co-authors of the repeal policy agreed to withdraw – because


a.)     The community asked for withdrawls of both – we honored it

b.)     We believed that mutual withdrawal was a way of creating some sense of trust and ability to work together – again – sadly the authors of –bis chose to prove that they would act in bad faith and destroyed any faith in working with them – since they clearly demonstrated that they were willing to renege on their own statements and defy what was openly requested on the floor

c.)     We believed that even in the absence of what we really wanted – a repeal – the current policy forms a mid-way point that we believed was acceptable if not ideal.

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
Date: Monday, 31 July 2017 at 09:40
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, Andre van Zyl <vanzyla at bcxcomms.net>, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS


On 31/Jul/17 05:41, Andrew Alston wrote:


As I have stated time and again with this policy – and it is a point that has *NEVER* been addressed by the authors of this policy – we have to make a decision – are we in this for the consumer on the ground – who needs the space today – or are we in this to protect the interests of ISP’s who either do not yet exist, or who have not been able to create sufficient infrastructure to utilize the space today.  I argue that AFRINIC is meant, under its mandate, to promote the penetration of Internet in Africa – and this policy runs in direct contravention of said mandate – since it slows down that development and will ultimately lead to additional costs that have to be born by the consumer on the ground.

Ultimately, I (and several others, I'm sure) are all for improving the Internet situation for the end user, be they my customer or someone else's.

Despite our attempts at extending its longevity, IPv4 will run out, eventually. As operators, we need to balance the immediate need of solving our IPv4 requirements with preparations for an IPv6 Internet. AFRINIC's role in that balancing act is to pass a "Soft Landing" policy proposal that effectively promotes such an agenda.

Mark.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170731/cac0c4dd/attachment-0001.html>