Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Questions for Alain...
saul at enetworks.co.za
Fri Jun 8 05:55:00 UTC 2018
It has been more than 24hours since my last request.
Alain has not withdrawn this policy. He has acknowledged that he wasn’t a
broker at the time of compilation of the policy, but now is and a clear
Please can this policy be removed due to conflict of interest.
From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net]
Sent: 07 June 2018 07:43 PM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...
I did not know in 2016 that I will be associated to an ip broker project. I
am sorry that my "African magic" was not sufficient to predict this future.
The intra-RIR policy was adopted by the community and implemented by
AFRINIC. Hence, one would expect Brokers to emerge on the continent.
Let me repeat:
The original proposal of SL-bis did not contain any limitation beyond the
change on the max allocation size in phase 1.
The revision history of the proposal is very explicit on the changes. The
limitations proposed by Sl-SD team were incorporated into the SL-BIS after
the Nairobi meeting based on discussions at the PPM and on list after the
PPM. PPM minutes and RPD archives are available to prove that.
Policy proposals evolve beyond the control of the initiators.
So, let us not redo the SL-bis discussions on the same issues again, and let
us move forward.
On 6 Jun 2018, at 18:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
<mailto:owen at delong.com> > wrote:
On Jun 6, 2018, at 06:34 , ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net
<mailto:aalain at trstech.net> > wrote:
I know that the SL-BIS policy proposal still giving you insomnia, but relax.
It is bizarre that i co-authored the SL-bis since February 2016 and the
Intra-RIR v4 transfer proposal, the 23rd may 2016 and you did not see the
Considering that it was not known at that time that you intended to be a
broker (at least not to Andrew, nor myself), why is it bizarre?
Both elements must be known in order to become aware of the conflict.
Now back to your point, i don't see how the SL-bis proposal submitted in
February 2016 creates a v4 shortage. It was about "fair distribution of
the last /8 of v4 and IPv6 deployment”:
It was about preventing those who need address space now from getting it
(i.e. an artificial shortage) in order to have some available for those who
do not yet need it but might in the future.
It has nothing to do with fairness. It’s ostensibly all about keeping a free
pool available as long as possible for speculative possible future needs.
The only way you can achieve that is by creating an artificial shortage (or,
more accurately, artificially worsening the existing shortage) for those
that need address space now.
How does it solve the problem
2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:
Changing the value of the maximum allocation/assignment size during the
exhaustion phase 1.
Imposing IPv6 resources as a pre-condition to IPv4 resource requests during
Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure and new LIRs
Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over time during the
You left out the part where you create a maximum amount of space per unit of
time restriction on applicants.
That provision (which is part of the policy) is the most controversial and
also the most critical to the real intents behind the proposal (denying
space to those who need it now to support the ostensible goal of providing
it to others later).
There are those that argue that such a denial is “fair” and there are those
who argue that it is completely unfair.
and the proposal itself is clear:
-No explicit limit on the number of times an organization may request
additional IPv4 address space during Exhaustion Phases(same as the soft
landing policy implemented)
Except that there is… There’s a limit on the amount of space an organization
may receive within a given time period which is effectively the same thing.
We all know how it evolved and how the SL-SD(*) proposal came in and
impacted the original proposal.
The Intra-RiR proposal was meant to address justified needs after exhaustion
of Afrinic pool or when AFRINIC cant no longer satisfied such needs. It
reached consensus (there was no appeal filled against) and has been
2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
The Policy solves the issue of an African organisation needing IPv4 number
resources after the exhaustion of the AFRINIC IPv4 pool or when AFRINIC can
no longer satisfy the needs of such an organization.
So, overall fair distribution from the last /8 and other remaining blocks
and provisions to cover justified needs inside the region after AFRINIC pool
Where is this problem ?
You were accused with your proposal of soft-landing-overhaul(**) to fast
track the exhaustion of the AFRINIC pool(distribute the last /8 with the
max allocation size at /10 instead of the /13 as per current soft landing
policy or /15 proposed by SL-bis proposal ) and i should have followed you
if i was acting to promote a v4 market.
Actually, not really. Preserving effective shortage against large providers
while still facilitating small providers obtaining sufficient IPv4 to be
able to avoid IPv6 provides the maximum revenue opportunity for brokers
while also being maximally destructive to the progress of a free and open
internet. SL-BIS does exactly this.
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.
True, it hurts the following parties:
CGN vendors because it reduces demand for costly CGN solutions
Those in denial about IPv6 because it forces them into an
uncomfortable reality check.
Brokers because it reduces the peak value and lifetime of the
Those sitting on large unused IPv4 pools for the same reasons as
Those late to the party who still think they can pursue an
IPv4-only strategy for a new business.
Those late to the party who find it expensive to support
remaining IPv4-only customers.
However, it would be better for the internet overall and would create a
greater level of pain for a much shorter period of time vs. SL-BIS which
seeks to intensify the pain more gradually while prolonging the duration of
that pain and achieving a much higher maximum.
If you believe that SL-BIS actually provides fair distribution or otherwise
solves the IPv4 runout problem, then you are like the mythological frog in
the pot of water.
The myth says that if you toss a frog in to a pot of hot water, it will jump
out and save itself. It goes on to say that if you put the frog in a pot of
cold water and slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will not notice and will
be boiled to death without reacting.
Turns out that frogs are smarter than the myth would have us believe and do
leave when the temperature becomes uncomfortable, regardless of how slowly
the temperature rises.
IPv4 runout is like the water. The rise in temperature is inevitable. SL-BIS
will make the rise in temperature slower, and its supporters hope we won’t
notice and will continue to sit in the water as we get scalded. SL-SD would
rapidly heat the water and provide a clear signal that it would be best for
us all to get out of the IPv4 pot and use IPv6.
Hope this clarifies and helps the discussions.
While it is a nice set of obfuscations, I think the community will still see
through the deception and continue to oppose SL-BIS as it has been doing for
a few years now.
On 5 Jun 2018, at 10:29, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> > wrote:
You have actively supported and fought for the new soft landing policy – to
artificially restrict space to entities that need it.
Now, I’d like to ask – as an author of the soft-landing-bis policy which you
have STILL not withdrawn… aren’t you just a LITTLE bit conflicted in trying
to create an artificial shortage and make it hard for people to get space –
while starting and founding an IP broker in Africa?
Maybe now we understand the *true* motivations behind the soft landing bis
RPD mailing list
<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> RPD at afrinic.net
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD