Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus
honest1989 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 5 13:54:06 UTC 2018
Please forgive me but I'm surprised to see unknown people with russian
freemail suddenly surface on rpd and have strong views. No offence meant
but we need to ensure we have real people participate in policy development.
I would not want the working group to spend time replying to sockpuppets
so perhaps others know you or could you introduce yourself?
Honest Ornella GANKPA
Le 04/01/2018 à 16:24, Dabu Sifiso a écrit :
> 04.01.2018, 08:00, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>:
>> Hi Mark
>> Again this is not true. It is explicitely said in the policy that any
>> organization (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18 within a 24
>> month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during exhaustion phase
>> 2. Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they justify 90%
>> utilization. I fail to see how it prevents growth for anyone. However it
>> does ensure good management of our ressources.
> "it does ensure good management of our ressources."
> Isn't that just what people are debating what is good and what is bad
> and cannot agree on it?
> If you needs more than a /18 or even a /22 in phase 2 for 24 months,
> transfers will be your only option once you have received that /22 or
> /18 from AFRINIC, is that good management, maybe?
> We hear of larger and smaller allocations being underutilized today,
> like a /12 being very much empty. but some people want limiting access
> of AFRINIC IPs in a way that AFRINIC's own IPs given to AFRINIC for
> distribution will be underutilized even when the demand and need is
> there by bigger networks.
> The refusal to see this makes me think!
> Are people trying to force IPv4 transfers to happen in AFRINIC just to
> raise prices by limiting access to the IPv4 address space owned by
> Are those the ones who are sitting on those smaller and larger
> underutilized allocations?
> Creating a premature scarcity to unload what they are sitting on and
> do not need at high price to the large ISPs with money but with no
> possibility to get more IP address from AFRINIC?
> Are those the same people that rejected having one way transfer into
> Africa, so that prices and availability could at least be matched with
> the current global market?
> If this is true then the people against the changes to softlanding
> policy are for the whole of Africa and are acting in our best interest
> not against!
> I hope the appeal committee shed some light into this.
> Maybe all these private Skype conversations will be made public and
> make us understand!
>> The policy doesn't punish success. In any case, it encourages carefully
>> planned growth
> It encourages CGNAT and IPv4 transfer by not giving AFRINIC IPv4 that
> is needed to those who need it.
>> Why would anyone disagree with that?
> People did, we didn't listen and believed those saying they were
> acting for the good of Africa, we were duped.
>> Is IPv6 not the common sense optionfor any growth plan?
> It stopped being a realistic alternative in 1999, turned into a
> running gag by 2009, and will only be revived once there is no IPv4 to
> distribute, could it be happening in 2019, or do we have to wait until
>> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> Le 04/01/2018 à 11:36, Mark Elkins a écrit :
>> Thus, by extension, the revised policy is generally harmful to
>> LIR's. They need larger blocks in order to grow, which this revision
>> of the policy does not allow. This policy is therefore
>> against larger (which probably implies more successful) LIR's. Thus,
>> the policy harms success (and larger LIR's who need more space).
>> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par
>> le logiciel antivirus Avast.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD