[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Sun Apr 29 12:51:14 UTC 2018

Dear Komi,

Have we reached a consensus? Then why are we discussing something that "Co-chairs have already declared "consensus"". Literally it means this proposal is waiting to go to concluding parts. 

However, when I hear comments by:

1. Alain "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 co-chairs decision was baseless and has been challenged. 

lets discuss this in Dakar."

2. Owen "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?"

I fear that another around of fireworks and hot argument will commence. You can now see why I am rhetorical with my questions and comments.

Regards
Daniel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>
To: "Daniel Yakmut" <yakmutd at googlemail.com>
Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:37:14 AM
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

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 