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

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

Noah noah at
Thu Dec 28 21:54:42 UTC 2017

On 28 Dec 2017 6:19 p.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at> wrote:

The problem is that in this case, there are so many clear objections

Please read through the PDP co-chairs report. It does capture the evolution
of this policy proposal from version 1 to version 7.

In any case, what are these "so many objections"? and how were they not
addressed in version 7?

Lets not go in circles, so be specific for the sake of clarity.

that calling it consensus flies in the face of any rational definition of
the words rough consensus.

Well that is your own subjective opinion. I still support the verdict of
the co-chairs and I would also argue that rough consensus was indeed
achieved based on the evolution of the proposal if we are to honestly stick
to the actual concerns that were previously raised by the PDPWG and
addressed throughout the various version before final version 7.

Such a distortion remains a disservice to the global internet community as
well as a disservice to the African internet community as well.

A disservice to the global internet community how????

1. Reducing the rate at which internet services can be deployed within

Thats just your own speculating, considering the fact that you are one of
the proponents of IPv6 adoption and have spent time to champion the IPv6
narrative ref: ARIN success stories.

But let me also speculate on what I know, would happen in the event that
the v4 space was long gone. I highly believe that those in need of v4 space
would then look to the IPv4 transfer markets even though IPv6 was readily
available to deploy and the rational is quite simple. IPv4 is a valuable
resource today while v6 whose registration is yet to be monetizes, from the
perspective of AFRINIC is readily available.

2. Extending the already protracted timeline for deployment of IPv6 within
the AfriNIC region

You mean IPv6 deployments in the era of available scarse IPv$ where even in
other regions, IPv4 is still the order of the day with millions of
transactions in the transfer market.

IMHO, IPv$ is what is extending the timelines for deploying IPv6, not the
soft-landing proposals. And for the case of AFRICA, IPv6 deployment just
like other regions will be an internal business continuity decision, when
some business start to realise that they cant reach some parts of the

3. Creating additional uncertainty around the IPv4 free pool.

Please be specific?

Because as far as SL-BIS version 7 is concerned, IPv4 space would still be
allocated/assigned as stipulated in the draft policy taking into
consideration section 3.4.(i) of the AFRINIC bylaws.

4. Creating an illusion that a new business with an IPv4 only strategy may
be viable.

Which part of the SL-BIS ver.7 draft policy is such an illutuon/narrative???

5. Increasing the deployment of harmful technologies like carrier grade

The reality is that, most resource members have idle address space out
there, because they still support NAT and CGN for the case of Telecoms and
they will still deploy NAT years after IPv4 inventory is empty.

I have travelled and used both mobile and wifi networks in regions where
IPv4 is no more, and not even a single network assigned my device a public
IPv4 address. Its all CG-NAT even when I get a local sim. This is my own

6. Depriving providers who have already made significant investments in
infrastructure of the addresses needed to deploy that investment and
produce revenue.

Each AFRINIC resource member has their own business strategy, rather than
you speculating about their investment needs, I would urgue that AFRINIC
did communicate to all her members about the scarcity ahead and we all know
that we are in the era of IPv4 scarcity.

The good news is that, these providers can still get resources under this
policy proposal to support their ultimate transition to an IPv6 Internet
which would be the ideal business strategy going forward and SL-BIS version
7 does address how all this can be achieved inline with section 3.4(i) of
the AFRINIC bylaws.

In fact I would say that, since 2004, the AFRINIC region has been of great
service to the African and global Internet community and will continue to

I would agree. That doesn’t change the fact that enacting this policy
despite the significant opposition would be harmful to the continuance of
that service.

Lets agree to disagree.... and as a supporter of SL-BIS, I also believe
that enacting this policy serves the best interest of the AFRINIC service
region as per the draft policy's problem statement.

The provisions which call for a set-aside for new entrants do exactly that.

Please point me to that specific provision.

The fact is that the SL-BIS proposal as it stands in version 7 does not
stop live and operating ISP's/Resource members of AFRINIC from obtaining
additional IPv4 resources.  The guidelines for the distribution of the
scarce /8 are pretty straight and I will refer you back to SL-BIS version 7
sections sections * *and **  and finally section *5.4.7* IPv6
deployment reserve. .

It severely limits the amount they can get and thus favors providers
connecting very small numbers of end users and virtually forces carrier
grade NAT onto anyone attempting to connect larger numbers of end users to
the internet.

Owen, IPv6 is tested and exists for those networks that feel limited by


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

More information about the RPD mailing list