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

[rpd] Questions for Alain...

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Jun 7 14:29:22 UTC 2018

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 02:35, Noah <noah at> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, 9:57 p.m. Owen DeLong, <owen at> wrote:
>> Fast tracking run-out, OTOH, brings AfriNIC in line with the rest of the world and helps get everyone moving towards IPV6 sooner rather than later, thus allowing those who have implemented IPv6 to deprecate their IPv4 albatrosses sooner rather than later, thus allowing the entire internet to move forward sooner rather than later.
> So in otherwords we should never give audience to any Inbound or Outbound or Inter-RIR IPv4 transfer policies ever.

Not what I’m saying at all. IMHO, a bidirectional inter-RIR transfer policy which takes efFect upon free pool runout would not be an unreasonable step. Others have different opinions. 

The community should consider any policy a member of the community wishes to propose, even one as ill-conceived as SL-BIS or the anonymized PDP. 

I have faith in the community’s ability to reject bad proposals and adopt better ones over time. 

> We should also never allow any more IPv4 space into this continent.

There is a huge difference between preserving the appearance of a free pool through policy manipulation which in effect subsidized smaller organizations at the expense of larger ones while simultaneously prolonging the time frame over which such smaller organizations can continue to ignore the global reality vs. allowing everyone the opportunity to obtain (costly) IPv4 space on a level playing field. 

> Good news is that we have an intra-rir policy that will enable IPv4 transfers only within the continent for those who seek to sell and buy IPv4 space in the AfriNIc service region and as such on continent brokers can therefore crop up to only trade available IPv4 on the continent.

A reasonable first step to be sure. 

> This way, we achieve forced IPv6 deployment. 

I don’t think forced is the right word here. My point is that the costs of failing to deploy IPv6 are not entirely borne by the organizations that fail to deploy IPv6. Indeed mostly they are inflicted upon the organizations that have deployed it by those that have not. 

Therefore, seeking to provide further subsidies to such organizations makes little sense to me. 

> So we are on the right trajectory :-)

Mostly, I think so. I’d like to see the free pool run out a bit faster and less widespread NAT, but the trends are at least generally in the right direction even if slower than is desired. 

> Noah


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

More information about the RPD mailing list