[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Tue May 1 23:31:46 UTC 2018

> On Apr 28, 2018, at 14:27, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and forth, 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, 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?

The policy currently on the books is less objectionable than the current proposal. While many of us who oppose this proposal would like to see it repealed, I believe most of us can live with the status quo. 

I personally do not believe such a policy serves the community at this time, so making it even worse is counter-productive. 

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

I think we don’t agree such a policy is required. 

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

I do not think we have consensus on this matter. Many of us believe this policy is unnecessary and even harmful. Others believe this policy is needed. 

> 
> 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, 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.

The answer to 1 and 3 (really the same question in reverse) varies depending on who you ask. There is the rub. 

> 
> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.

While I’d like to see us do so, unlike my opponents, I do recognize that they are entitled to sustain their support just as much as our sustained objections remain valid. 

> 
> 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.

The good news is that v4 freepool policies probably won’t matter much after Dakar or possibly one more meeting after that. There’s a reason the proponents are in a rush and the opponents are willing to run out the clock. 

Fortunately for the community, absent actual rough consensus, the process favors the status quo over ill-advised changes to policy over the objections of even a minority of the community. 

Owen

> 
> 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