[rpd] Questions for Alain...

[Noah]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 5:30 p.m. Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Owen

Now you are changing tunes. Which RIR has reasonable space to make
available to AfriNIC who with LACNIC never got the lion share in the first
place.

Inter-RIR is not an option. We dont have space for reciprocal exchange and
IPv6 is our way out and the so called Inter-RIR will slow greenfielding of
IPv6.


Others have different opinions.
>


No Inter-RIR, no Inbound and no Outbound and we move forward.

We have a policy in place to aid inside Africa transfer of space and this
will work for us in the meantime.



> 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
>


The free pool was meant to be preserved into order to aid IPv6 transitions.
So if some members believe that fast tracking IPv4 into depletion is best
option to transitioning to IPv6, then be it.


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.
>


Even IPv6 will become more costly eventually as resource members switch
from v4 to v6. How else will RIR's continue to exist. So lets not pretend
like IPv4 is more costly than IPv6 save for the AfriNIC region where cost
is low for motivation purposes.


> This way, we achieve forced IPv6 deployment.
>
>
> I don’t think forced is the right word here.
>

What I meant is that lack of available IPv4 is good news because IPv6
deployments will become a reality and new entrants will quickly greenfield
IPv6 on the go which is why the so called Intra-RIR, inbound or outbound
options to are bad for AfriNIC service region.


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.
>

Expected effects of transitioning.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180607/1b7ed7d7/attachment.html>