[rpd] Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

[John Hay]

Hi,

On 7 December 2017 at 08:45, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Yes that is somewhat different in that it proposes a reduction from /22 to
> /24 while current softlanding proposal proposes a reduction from /13 to /18
> which is still way more than what RIPE provides, with option to receive
> more than once.
>
> The PDWG may want to consider if staying in the middle say /16 serves as a
> compromise for all.
>

The whole proposal seems to want to make sure someone can get a donkey cart
in the far future, while we are all moving to petrol, diesel and even
electric cars.

I think debating if the 1/18 should be a /16 or some other number, is not
the biggest problem.

To my mind 5.4.6.1 is the biggest problem. It does not take the size of the
company requesting the address space into account. So a very small company
can probably grow as fast as it can because it might only be able to roll
out a /18 in two years and connect only a few new users to the internet. A
big multinational that wants to roll out in a few countries can also only
get a single /18 in two years. They might have connected many thousands or
hundreds of thousands of new users to the internet. Currently even if you
roll out IPv6, you still need to also provide IPv4 connectivity. In 5-10
years from now, it might not be needed or you could get away with only a
few IPv4 addresses so that your users can get to the few lagging IPv4 only
sites still left using some kind of translation service.

And no just because a company is big, that does make them bad. They might
be more efficient at connecting users to the internet.

If you would dual stack your users today and provide equal IPv6 and IPv4
internet connectivity to them, you will find that around half of the
traffic is already IPv6.

Regards

John



> Regards
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Dec 7, 2017 6:38 AM, "John Hay" <jhay at meraka.csir.co.za> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> A while back someone noted that RIPE was also busy with something similar,
> although not exactly the same. After a long debate the proposal was
> withdrawn. You can read the proposal and discussion from the links below.
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-pr
> oposals/archive-policy-proposals/
>
> You can follow the thread here in the September and October 2017 archives:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/
>
> I'm against the proposed changes to the Soft Landing policy. I really do
> not think it will do anything to promote IPv6 roll out and I think it will
> slow down Internet roll outs to the people in Africa.
>
> PS. Neither me nor the organisation I work for will benefit either way.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 6 December 2017 at 22:33, Christian Ahiauzu <
> christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:
>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> I believe you did in the best way you can. Even though I don't agree with
>> you on this, I respect your views.
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Christian.
>> On Dec 6, 2017 6:31 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christian,
>>>
>>> I believe I previously answered your question below about why we need
>>> the appeal this time.
>>>
>>> If that isn’t a sufficient answer, let me know and I will attempt to
>>> reiterate things more clearly.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 01:07 , Christian Ahiauzu <
>>> christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please
>>> put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if
>>> there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my
>>> postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at
>>> this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the
>>> board.
>>>
>>> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for
>>> invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further
>>> objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost
>>> here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal
>>> process.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Christian.
>>> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I
>>>>> had to look up who the chairs actually are...
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that this page shows: https://afrinic.net/en/
>>>>> community/policy-development/pdwg
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Dewole Ajao
>>>>>
>>>> 2. Sami Salih
>>>>
>>>> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with
>>>> their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.
>>>>
>>>> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy,
>>>> please end this discussion and start a new one!
>>>>
>>>> Kind thanks
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> 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/20171207/b6ca1c78/attachment-0001.html>