[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Sun Apr 29 10:37:14 UTC 2018

Daniel,
Please, find few comments below.

2018-04-28 21:27 GMT+00:00 Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>:

>
> The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and
> forth,

Intentionally? The question is worth asking?

> as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at very sharp and deep
> divides. The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not ready to
> shift grounds,

We've gone a long way through this policy[1].

> in this regard can we answer the following:
>
> 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy of
> this nature?
>

Considering that the said policy has reached "Last call". I'd answer yes.

> 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?
>

I find a clue for this here[2]

> 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried  and we
> make progress on more productive issues.
>

Archives should tell about the interest or lack of interest the community
on the SL-BIS

>
> However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we do a
> clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus,

Co-chairs have already declared "consensus". Does it make your suggestion
obsolete?

> any clause agreed upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious but
> that way, we can identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or discard it.
>
> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.
>
> It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast
> track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on
> IPV4.
>

Assuming the problem statement, here is what 2.0 says.
{
This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:

Changing the value of the maximum allocations/assignment sizes during
exhaustion phases 1 and 2.
Reserving a dedicated block to facilitate IPv6 deployment.
}
So IPv6 deployment is covered.
Hoping this helps.
Thanks.

[1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007909.html
[2] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008217.html

> Regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ALAIN AINA" <aalain at trstech.net>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 12:55:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
>
> hello,
>
>
> > On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are a number of problems with this:
> >
> > 1.    History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in
> order to obtain
> >       more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just
> makes a mess of
> >       the registry and registry related statistics.
> >
>
> > 2.    Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between
> an IPv4 allocation/assignment
> >       and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4
> /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
> >       Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.
> >
> >       IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and
> allocation boundaries that there
> >       simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good
> thing, but it means that what you are
> >       proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).
> >
> > Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the
> community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is
> not wanted?
>
> Oy yes “community”
>
> The proposal  got  consensus and was  recommended for ratification by BoD.
> There has been an appeal against co-chair decision. The Appeal committee
> decision to nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has been
> challenged.
>
> lets discuss this in Dakar.
>
> —Alain
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby
> any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of
> ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without
> requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made
> when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained.
> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>

-- 
--KE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180429/4852823a/attachment-0001.html>