[rpd] The need to review the existing soft landing policy (was Re: Two more petitioners)

Tue Dec 19 16:21:03 UTC 2017

Hi Mike,

We have gone a long way with the discussions about the existing softlanding policy and the merits of the various proposals to amend it. The version of SL-BIS  which went to last call is a merger of two of them.  
The RPD and PPM archives are available for those who want to revisit  the history. 

Thanks

—Alain

> On 19 Dec 2017, at 14:28, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Augustin
> 
> Thank you for being a voice of reason in what is becoming a very fractious debate.
> 
> I have tried to stay out of the debate as it has become more personal and more ridiculous. You give me hope that we can can actually engage each other constructively. [to that end I have trimmed the recipients and the thread and renamed the topic to try bring it back from the edge]
> 
> I have a slightly different perspective from you. You will not that I refer to myself in this comment - the views are my own and not that of my employer or for that matter my colleagues :-) :
> 
> 1 we need a IPv4 soft landing policy to ensure new entrants have access to IPv4 resources for the short to medium term while these are still needed to mediate between existing v4 and existing and future v6 networks.
> 
> 2 we ALREADY HAVE A SOFT LANDING POLICY. Sorry to shout - but there are many on this list who have made a comment as if that policy does not exist. It does: https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy <https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy>
> 
> 3 There are some who think that policy is too lenient and will allow for v4 addresses to run out too quickly - they want an even more restrictive policy, slowing down the burn rate and keeping even more v4 addresses in reserve for the future. There are others who think it already way to restrictive - it impedes growth amongst existing network operators and should be scrapped.
> 
> 4 Unfortunately the existing network operators who want more resources are branded as being from one geographical region or of a particular ethnic background. The fact that there are some more vocal proponents of this view that share such characteristics has led to a lot of extrapolation and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
> 
> 5 The extremes on either end are creating an incorrect perception that there are only two answers here. There is actually a middle way, namely keeping the existing soft landing policy in place.
> 
> In all the noise and name calling, I have yet to see real evidence that the existing policy is no longer workable and really requires amendment.
> 
> We really need to balance two competing interests. Existing networks who need to grow and achieve the increased penetration everyone is talking about and new entrants who may (or may not) come along at some future time. If we want to increase penetration - then we would allocate every last v4 address based on proven use.
> 
> This is not helped by some folks sitting on under-utilised resources.
> 
> Please do not think that it is only South African network operators who need v4 addresses. My employer (happens to be Andrew’s employer too) is a pan-African operator. Most of our resources are used outside of South Africa because most of our network and most of our customers are in our other 11 markets. (as an aside - most of our shareholders are also Africans from outside SA) People get confused because two of the arrogant loud mouths happen to be South African. 
> 
> I can assure you that I am just as concerned about our operation in RDC as I am in South Africa - perhaps even more concerned because RDC is an enormous country which is significantly underserved and we will need significant network resources to achieve greater penetration. The other option is that we NAT the hell out of our network in RDC and treat Congolese network users like low end consumers with a sub-standard service.
> 
> I do not think that is acceptable. I think an operator in RDC, or any other country in Africa, should be allowed to grow its network and should be given reasonable v4 resources to enable that growth: on indication of utilisation of existing resources. I don’t think we should be hobbled because of some theoretical “future operator” but I also do not think we should throw away these resources.
> 
> I think we need to keep the existing soft landing policy in place and only change it based on fact based proposals and not on the hysterical accusations of the parties at the extremes.
> 
> Mike
> 
>> On 19 Dec 2017, at 15:26, augustin kanyimbu <augustin.kanyimbu at unikin.ac.cd <mailto:augustin.kanyimbu at unikin.ac.cd>> wrote:
>> 
>> Andrew and Jackson,
>> 
>> upon reading all discussions I am sure that there is a big misunderstanding, which could lead to conflicts, whereas you are playing on the same ground. So, let me help you and make it clear:
>> 
>> Andrew, the facts Jackson is highlighting are as follow:
>> 
>> 1) Internet penetration in Africa, except South Africa, is too low - whatever your penetration rates, let'so throw them down -, the fact is clearly known;
>> 
>> 2) All African countries, poor or rich, have same rights to access to Afrinic resources but, again, South Africa is far light years away from the rest of 53 African countries. They are coming up, maybe slowly, and Afrinic must provide them with a minimum of resources to let them start up whenever one of them rise up from the darkness. A good management policy is where anticipation and prevention are taken into account;
>> 
>> 3) Afinic is a non-profit organization, this is why all countries are equal and have same rights, especially in such a scarcity of IPV4, the fair way of sharing would be providing to each country the same cut of beef, during this transient toward the ipv6 environment... no place for selfish attitude, nor for capitalism free market spirit!
>> 
>> 3) Afinic is a non-profit organization, this is why all countries are equal and have same rights, especially in such a scarcity of IPV4, the fair way of sharing would be providing to each country the same cut of beef, during this transient toward the ipv6 environment... no place for selfish attitude, nor for the highest bidder in capitalism free market spirit!
>> 
>> 4) Finally, as an African member, you stand all effort which can help growing African internet access; that's fine! So let's preserve resources for the so many next late comer countries.
>> 
>> Brother, forget any racial concept, let's go ahead, let's help our valuable continent!
>> 
>> Augustin K.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> KANYIMBU MUTOMBO Augustin
>> IT Manager & SYS. Administrator
>> +243 998124376 
>> +243 848420937 |  <mailto:Augustin.kanyimbu at unikin.ac.cd>augustin.kanyimbu at unikin.ac.cd <mailto:augustin.kanyimbu at unikin.ac.cd>
>>                          | University of Kinshasa
>>                          | DRC, Kinshasa
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171219/6e1fd64c/attachment-0001.html>