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

[rpd] SL-BIS (Was Re: Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1))

ALAIN AINA aalain at trstech.net
Thu Aug 17 16:35:30 UTC 2017 

Hi John,
 
 Thanks for these comments and questions.  It is the sort of discussions, i am trying  to attract with my  recent mail on the proposal(*) See inline...

> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:48, John Hay <jhay at meraka.csir.co.za> wrote:
> 
> 
> I prefer the current soft landing policy, except that I do like the direction of section 5.4.7 (IPv6 deployment reserve) of the -BIS proposal.


 SL-BIS with the max in phase 1 to /13 instead of /18 ?


> I would take it a step further to say that only new LIRs and End Users can get assignments from it. Maybe even only new LIRs?
> 
> Keeping a /12 for that might be too big. Looking at AFRINIC statistics, there are about 150 new members a year, so for 10 years (which I think is too long, but a nice round number), 1500, rounded up to 2048 at a /24 each is a /13 that needs to be kept out.

The spirit of the current SL which SL-bis followed is to make fair distribution, give chance to many, at all stages, but avoid stocking unused space.

Thus, the no limit on numbers of request from members in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

The same spirit prevails with the dedicated reserve for IPv6 deployment:

- Covers new comers as well as old players(LIRs and  End-users) if they meet 5.4.7.2.2. 

=====
5.4.7.2.2 The applicant must demonstrate that no other allocations or assignments will meet this need.
=======

-  Make the reserve to last for some times with :

* Reserve size (/12)
* Limit the max allocation to /24 with an allocations/assignment  window of 6 months(so a member can only get a max of /23 in 12 months)

a /12 represents a total of 1,048,576 IPs. At  a rate of 100 nodes sharing one public IPv4, this IPv6 dedicated reserve allows about 104,857,600 nodes access to legacy v4-only networks through IPv6-only networks, when  no more v4 space is left in AFRINIC normal  pool.

Africa has the lowest Internet penetration and the biggest growth rate (2000-2017) http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

> 
> I do not like 5.4.6.2 in the -BIS proposal, because it penalise legitimate big members, just because they are big. (And big members are not less efficient with addresses.) Telling a member you can get 8 months worth of addresses every 24 months is not going to fit in their business plan. It will be almost the same as telling them come once only.


5.4.6 was introduced in SL-BIS 5.0 based on a community request to fill a gap conditions in SL-bis 4.0

> 
> It feels like this part was done to achieve a hidden agenda. That might be better done by updating the eligibility criteria.


The motivations for the 5.4.6.2 shall be read in the SL-SD proposal.   https://afrinic.net/fr/library/policies/2089-soft-landing-sd

Thank you

—Alain

(*)  https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007538.html


> 
> Regards
> 
> John
> --
> John Hay
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 August 2017 at 20:12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> ARIN reserved a /10 for IPv6 transition and a /16 for critical infrastructure. ARIN Has a total of 100.1 /8s (400.4 /10s, so the reservation of a /10 is the equivalent of 0.25% of their total holdings. It’s equal to 25,600.3 /16s, so reservation of a /16 is equal to 0.004% of their total holdings.
> 
> ARIN made no other reservations for new entrants.
> 
> Proportionately, AfriNIC total holdings are 7.23 /8s, so equivalent reservations would be about 1.5 /14s, so let’s call it a /13 for transition and approximately 20 /24s (let’s round up to 32 and call it a /19 for critical infrastructure).
> 
> If such a proposal were on the table in AfriNIC, I would support it. Unfortunately, that’s not what is on the table here. The proposal on the table here is laden with quite a few other unnecessary and harmful restrictions and is focused on stringing out the IPv4 business as usual for small organizations while denying addresses to larger organizations with equivalent or even greater present need.
> 
> I did not agree to adoption of a previous version, I stated that it was less objectional than its predecessor.
> 
> IMHO, authors acting in bad faith is the single biggest issue dividing the community. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating it as the only issue, it means I am identifying it as what I perceive to be the single most divisive issue.
> 
> You keep telling me I should let others speak, but I don’t see where I have ever made any effort to prevent anyone from speaking, so I am not sure what your meaning is here. I think it is, perhaps, your back-handed way of attempting to tell me not to speak, but if that is your intent, then say it plain and see where that goes.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Aug 13, 2017, at 07:42 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Without prejudice to Eddy and Ademola's wise counsel, this is an example of what leads to exchanges that make some say there is toxicity.
>> 
>> For whatever purpose, I see you promoting the so-called factions on a thread that tries to move us forward.  It is all evident in your choice of words - "stubbornly cling", "mutual abandonment" "single issue" 
>> 
>> In case you do not realise, you continue to personalise what has become a community document that contains elements of SL-SD and text from other members of the community.   
>> 
>> The jury is still out on your about-face on the claim to have written Alain Durand's proposal but I followed my gut instincts and trawled through related discussions on the ARIN list.   I am happy for you to correct me if I am wrong ...with evidence.
>> 
>> I read that you and others agreed with the Alain Durand's proposal but nowhere do you propose any text as subsequently claimed.  What I saw in the related discussions was support for reserving for IPv6 and to look up to 20 years ahead.  Time is bearing this position out.  
>> 
>> Mind you, this was in 2008 and the ARIN reserve persists despite the exhaustion of the free pool and secondary market.  Even if our circumstances in AfriNIC today were not different, with a similar outlook, this suggests that we should look forward to another 10 years at least.  This conforms with Alain Durand's further work and every other RIR which maintains a reserve.  
>> 
>> On top of this, you basically agree to the adoption of a previous version [1] then turn around to champion going back to your "single issue" when an updated version is put on the list by the Co-chairs. 
>> 
>> We have heard your opinion on what AfriNIC should do.  Time to let others speak and let those who want to move things forward do so.
>> 
>> Merci!
>> 
>> [1] - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006710.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006710.html>
>> 
>> On 13 August 2017 at 06:00, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> I think a positive first step towards useful dialog would be for the authors of SL-BIS to work with the authors from the other proposal to craft a new proposal and abandon SL-BIS as previously agreed. I think with that restoration of good faith, it would be much easier to move forward. If they continue to stubbornly cling to the existing proposal even after the strong showing of support for mutual abandonment and agreement thereto, then I think it is that single issue which makes it difficult for one side to trust that the other may work with them in good faith to reach resolution.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 03:58 , Ademola Osindero <ademola at ng.lopworks.com <mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> I very much share Eddy’s sympathy on the deteriorated state of this collaboration. We cannot pretend all is fine and expect to move further with any proposal. Neither can we venture down the lane of exploring sanctions. The community is meant to be an egalitarian society and appointed leaders are only chosen to help steer the wheel of affairs.
>>> 
>>> Like in all conflicts, if we allow this enmity to continue, it will be total chaos for Afrinic. I do second the option of calling for an emergency resolution meeting to hold either virtually or at a physical location. Let us all work together to douse the growing tension. More so, this community has grown over the years with several people coming on board. We have to learn to listen to divergent views.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Regards,
>>> Ademola Osindero
>>> 
>>> CEO/Consulting Director
>>> Lopworks Limited
>>> 29 Ago Palace Way,
>>> Okota, Isolo,
>>> Lagos, Nigeria
>>> 
>>> Mob: +234 8058097820 <>, +234 <tel://+234> 8091291780 <>
>>> Tel: +234 1 3422633 <>
>>> Email: ademola at ng.lopworks.com <mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com>
>>> Web: http://www.lopworks.com <http://www.lopworks.com/>
>>> On 12 August 2017 at 11:05:28, Eddy Kayihura (ekayihura at gmail.com <mailto:ekayihura at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> I have to admit it is very sad to see where we have reached at as a community.
>>>> 
>>>> I have friends from both sides that seems to be at war and I have failed to understand what is at stake. Maybe I am not looking hard enough or have not searched deep enough.
>>>> 
>>>> In a family, when there is conflict and people still do want to keep the family fabric alive, people sit down and discuss matters sometimes with neutral wise men (and women in our generation).
>>>> 
>>>> Do you think there is still a small chance for our community to stay united? We don't need to agree on all but should keep the interests of the community at heart.
>>>> 
>>>> These debates have become so toxic that it is hard to focus on what's important. With this bottom up process we don't distribute red cards and everyone can add his sauce on the mix (even me with no understanding on the discussed topic :-)
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think we are a community that can evolve with consensus any more since we have allowed these diverging opinions and camps to divide us so much. It is no longer what it used to be: "a group of geeks working together for the good of the Internet as well as the continent."
>>>> 
>>>> My humble proposal is to zoom out a bit and seat at a virtual round table with the intention to dilute each sides toxic glass. 
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure how this would work but hope the wise men and women can know how to moderate such debate.
>>>> 
>>>> Hoping we still have those wise persons in this community...
>>>> 
>>>> My 2 cents...
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 11, 2017 12:20 PM, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 5:23 a.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>> I understand why you think these are better, but I will agree to disagree.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen,
>>>> 
>>>> The board asked for suggestions and I have shared different options we can explore and I didnt expect you personally to agree with these suggestions even a bit considering your openly biased view point ref: the matter.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think any of those constructs would result in factional distrust of the outcome of the process.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Can you please elaborate fully this factional distrust you assume. Dont you think you contribute to it?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Noah
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>> RPD mailing list 
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> 
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> 
>> -- 
>>  <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>Omo Oaiya
>> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN 
>> Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224
>> Skype: kodion <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <http:/>
>> http://www.wacren.net <http://www.wacren.net/>
>> 
>>  <http:/>
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <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/20170817/8f877be5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list