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

[rpd] Questions for Alain...

Saul Stein saul at
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Alain has not withdrawn this policy.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 
conflict arises.

Please can this policy be removed due to conflict of interest.

From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at]
Sent: 07 June 2018 07:43 PM
To: rpd at
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 
<mailto:owen at> > wrote:

On Jun 6, 2018, at 06:34 , ALAIN AINA <aalain at 
<mailto:aalain at> > wrote:

Hi Andrew,

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 
so-called conflict.

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 
the exhaustion.

Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure and new LIRs 
or End-Users.

Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over time during the 
exhaustion period.

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 
IPv4 marketplace

            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 
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at> > 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> RPD at

RPD mailing list
RPD at <mailto:RPD at>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list