Search RPD Archives
[rpd] . Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now
Emem William
dwizard65 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 29 16:01:00 UTC 2019
Good day everyone,
>From statistics, most of the people that are yet to be connected to the
internet live in Africa and we need the IP"s to get these people connected.
Therefore there is a huge market for investors in Africa as the other
markets are getting saturated already.
If this Policy is approved, there is more likelihood that IP addresses
would move towards the African continent to get the unconnected connected
rather than the other way round.
Hence, I believe there would be more inflow of IPs into Africa than out
flow if inter RIR policy is approved.
I support this policy.
Thanks !
Kindly regards,
William, Emem E. (Snr)
Nigeria
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 15:03 <rpd-request at afrinic.net wrote:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs
> this policy now! (Andrew Alston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:02:40 +0000
> From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, Nasir Faruk
> <nasirfaruk at gmail.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> Message-ID: <385176CD-5847-4DA8-B11A-08A2412B672F at liquidtelecom.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Jordi,
>
> Just a note on SRv6 ? yes ? the IETF did certain things with SRv6 recently
> ? but the debate is far from over ? because SRv6 as defined by the original
> SR draft has major problems ? and there are at least two more RFC?s coming
> ? interestingly enough they do things very differently.
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/srv6-why-we-want-andrew-alston/
>
> That lists 4 of the current drafts ? another one I?m expecting out in the
> next few days ? edits are done for initial submission so just waiting for
> publication.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Date: Saturday, 29 June 2019 at 14:59
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, Nasir Faruk <
> nasirfaruk at gmail.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Some responses below, in-line.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> El 29/6/19 12:55, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> escribi?:
>
> So,
>
> There are a few things here that we also need to consider.
>
> Let?s start with the mass IPv6 deployment. To be frank, deploying IPv6 to
> the edge to the customers ? is only one part of it. There are other fairly
> major stumbling blocks ? in particular ? V6 in an MPLS environment right
> now is still a bit of a mess ? LDPv6 was basically still born ? and in both
> the cases of Cisco and Juniper, you currently cannot a.) Do V6 Martini b.)
> V6 L3VPN still has huge ties back to V4 (why, heaven only knows) c.) There
> is massive inconsistently about the forward movement of V6 in various
> domains ? to give you an idea ? Cisco on IOS-XE does not implement SR-MPLS
> TLV?s in IS-IS at current, neither does Huawei ? and there is very little
> clarification on if they are going to ? or if they are going to chase the
> SRv6 train ? and in the matter case ? where we end up with SRv6 is still a
> mystery ? because there are two very divided schools of thought on SRv6
> (and it concerns header overhead on packets) . So ? this whole ?simply
> mass deploy v6? argument ? is actually a fair bit more complex for many
> people than many would like you to believe.
>
> In general, I think I agree, and possibly the path forward will be SRv6,
> which possibly will take around 1 year to be generally available in
> equipment. IETF just passed it, so it is up to vendors to decide in what
> hardware will be supported. Several of them already have betas running and
> even some big deployment.
>
> However, if you have ?some? business customers, possibly you want to keep
> dual-stack in most of your core network. I?m referring to the ?big
> customers?, that have their own IPv4 PI (maybe PA, but because the
> scarcity, and because the need to have IPv6 PI if they are multihomed, I
> think they should also have IPv4 PA) and need transit in dual-stack,
> because they are having some ?dual-stack? services in their own networks.
> This will decrease with the increase of Cloud Services, of course.
>
> Business customers that don?t need to ?host? in their own network
> services, can be very well served with 464XLAT, the same as residential
> ones. This may be also approached with SD-WAN solutions and combinations of
> both.
>
>
> Yes ? it can be done ? but its not the simple put some addresses on there
> and let it run that people make out. Not to mention the transition
> mechanisms to do V6 -> V4 translation are to be blunt, a mess, there are
> what, 20+ of them? Again ? it can be done, but it aint exactly quick and
> easy ? and this is my major problem with this whole argument of ?just use
> v6?
>
> Forget about all them, IPv6-only with IPv4-as-a-Serive is the only
> realistic approach. 464XLAT is the way, especially if you also have
> cellular network and don?t want to get 2 transitions mechanisms (for
> example 464XLAT and MAP-T/E or lw4o6).
>
> Reference: RFC8585 and draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment (last-call ended
> 2 days ago, so soon also an RFC).
>
> Secondly, regards to the comments about the bylaws and IP space ? let me
> be clear ? no one owns an integer ? IP addresses are not assets. When you
> buy space, or sell space, you are not selling the space, you are charging
> someone for the process of transferring your right to use said numbers from
> you to them. Even then, I would argue that IP space and the usage thereof,
> is built on a trust based system. There is no legislation anywhere that I
> know of that allows anyone to lay claim to an integer ? and if I?m wrong
> here, please, correct me, because as far as I know, there simply isn?t any
> case law on this (anywhere)
>
> As such, I don?t think we can bring arguments about assets into the IP
> space debate in the context of the bylaws. What you get as a member of an
> RIR ? and what you are paying for ? is a book keeping entry ? to say ?We
> believe that you have the right to use this number and we?re telling the
> world we think it should be you using it?, you are NOT paying for IP space,
> you are NOT paying to have sole claim to that IP space ? you are paying for
> a journal entry ? nothing more.
>
> Fully agree here!
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> From: Nasir Faruk <nasirfaruk at gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2019 12:30
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
>
> Hello Lee,
> Thanks for the well thought document. It has given considerable numbers
> needed to support this argument. I think one concern of Noah not addressed
> on the paper was the statistics of estimated IP address that may flow to
> AFRINIC when the policy take up. This is a number that would be somehow
> difficult to provide because it depends on the demand and supply chain.
>
> @Noah,
> It is great the fact that you have admitted from Lee?s submission that
> Africa would need address space most. However, I can see that your stand is
> basically revolving around option A, which I called massive IPv6 deployment.
> Now, do you honestly think in Africa, the IPv6 deployment will be at the
> advanced stage before AFRINIC runs out of IPv4 spaces? What is your
> confidence level, give me some numbers!
> Then supporting one-direction transfers to only Afrinic to me would not
> be an option if other RIRs constrained to bi-directional flows. I dont
> think its wise to think other regions would change their policies to agree
> in one-direction transfers to Afrinic. Why would they do such?
>
> Best Regards.
> Faruk
>
>
>
>
> ..........................................................................................................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:59 AM <rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs
> this policy now! (Ronald F. Guilmette)
> 2. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs
> this policy now! (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
> 3. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs
> this policy now! (Ronald F. Guilmette)
> 4. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs
> this policy now! (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:09:16 -0700
> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com<mailto:
> rfg at tristatelogic.com>>
> To: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> Message-ID: <80104.1561759756 at segfault.tristatelogic.com<mailto:
> 80104.1561759756 at segfault.tristatelogic.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> I must begin by saying that I have two apologies to make to you all.
>
> The first, which I will need to post at a later time, is for my prior bad
> behavior and unfairly imflamitory and prejuducial comments made on this
> list some several years ago now. I was utterly wrong in my comments
> and assumptions on that occasion, and have been meaning to come here and
> post a lengthy apology every since... a task that, for one reason or
> another, has gotten put in the back burner all this time.
>
> I don't even have time to go into my past mistakes or the reasons for them
> just now, so that will have to wait, and I will post a more elaborate and
> detailed apology for my past rude comments, hopefully in the very near
> future. (Perhaps nobody even remembers or cares anymore what I bad
> things I said here long ago, especially given what seems to have been
> some dramatically woser behavior here recently. But it is a matter of
> honor and I need to set the record straight and apologize properly,
> but with an explanation.)
>
> My second apology is for coming in late to this discussion about the
> pending Inter-RIR policy proposal(s). I am only now becoming aware of
> this and I confess that I haven't had time to study or even think about
> either the proposal or its implications or the stated postions of various
> members on the proposal(s). Nontheless, I feel compelled to interject
> myself just for the purpose of asking a few very naive questions...
>
> My starting point is Mr. Noah's recent posting on this topic...
>
> In message <
> CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6+ShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju+vQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:
> CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6%2BShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju%2BvQ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
>
> >So Jordi,
> >
> >I still oppose this policy with strongest terms possible. I still believe
> >IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when holders of Idle space who
> are
> >yet to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will trade them for
> >some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC. What we need is a policy
> >that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the region
> because
> >of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage more space coming into
> >the region.
>
> For whatever it is worth, I personally am totally torn on this issue. On
> the one hand, I would like to support my friend Jordi, and I do, certainly,
> with respect to his anti-hijacking proposal, but perhaps not in the
> case of Inter-RIR transfers. Also, as a longtime fighter against spam
> on the Internet, it is an has been my belief that if all IPv4 space were
> transfered, tomorrow, to whomever was the highest bidder, without any
> regard for any other consideration (e.g. geography) then this alone would
> put a major and perhaps crippling dent in the practice of so-called
> "snowshoe" spamming... a practice that requires a LOT of very cheap IPv4
> address space.
>
> That all having been said, I am also quite sympathetic to the postion
> elaborated by Mr. Noah, and I could even be easily induced to begin
> chanting "Afrinic for Africans!" (And I say this even though I myself
> am not an African, either by residence or birth.)
>
> At the formation, Afrinic was endowed with a great deal of IPv4 address
> space, and I believe that it was everyone's understanding, at that time,
> that all these resources would be used for the good of Africans. Much
> has transpired since that time, the Internet itself has changed
> dramatically,
> and an open market for IPv4 address space has now evolved. But despite
> all that, it can be, and perhaps should be argued that the fundamental
> principal should still survive, and that Afrinic space should be used to
> the benefit of Africans, and not just as an object of trade, i.e. to derive
> a one-time cash transfer to current or historical holders of these
> resources.
>
> But I didn't come here to make speeches.
>
> I said above that I would have a few naive questions, and I do. Now I
> finally come to those. Mostly my questions derive from the fundamental
> charter of Afrinic, which is to say its bylaws:
>
> https://afrinic.net/bylaws<https://afrinic.net/bylaws>
>
> Here are my two questions:
>
> *) Section 3.2 of the Bylaws reads as follows:
>
> 3.2 The income and the capital of the Company shall be applied
> solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and
> no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred,
> directly or indirectly, to the members, whether by way of dividend,
> capital distribution or bonus or otherwise.
>
> I wonder if anyone has considered, or reconsidered the implications,
> legal and otherwise, of this (historical?) section of the bylaws,
> particularly now that IPv4 address blocks may be, and quite certainly
> are being treated, by major accounting firms, as part of the capital
> assets of the various companies, worldwide, i.e. all those that
> currently buy, sell, trade, and "own" them.
>
> That's my question. Does Section 3.2 of the Bylaws prohibit Afrinic
> from "transferring" IP address blocks to any party AT ALL? (Remember,
> I did warn you all above that my questions would be naive!)
>
> *) Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reds as follows:
>
> 6.1 Membership shall be open to:
>
> (i) any Person who is geographically based within, and providing
> services in the African region, and who is engaged in the use of,
> or business of providing, open system protocol network services; or
>
> (ii) any other Person who is approved by the Board or the members.
>
> I must and do apologize for my abundant ignorance, but I really am at
> a loss to understand the implications, if any, of the above quoted
> section of the Bylaws, particularly with respect to IP address
> resources.
>
> If anyone would be so kind as to clarify for me whether or not Section
> 6.1 of the Bylaws have any specific implications with respect to IP
> address resources, I sure would appreciate it.
>
> Those are the only two questions I have for now. I look forward to being
> enlightened regarding the above two points.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:24:53 +0200
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es>>
> To: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> Message-ID: <47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D at consulintel.es<mailto:
> 47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D at consulintel.es>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Ronald,
>
> I think the misconception here is to believe that we are "actually"
> talking about the addresses as a "transferable" object.
>
> By definition, the addresses aren't from the ISP that gets them.
>
> What we are transferring is the right to get the addresses registered for
> the exclusive use of the resource-holder, so that organization can use
> those addresses (for its own network or customers).
>
> In fact, we could say that the RIRs are also NOT the owners of the
> addresses, just the responsible of the registration services and
> distribution of the "rights to use them" for the community.
>
> I think that may clarify your points?
>
> And by the way, if you were right, then I'm sure we will have a problem in
> *every* RIR with all the transfer policies, and I guess sufficient lawyers
> have already looked into that!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> ?El 29/6/19 0:15, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com<mailto:
> rfg at tristatelogic.com>> escribi?:
>
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> I must begin by saying that I have two apologies to make to you all.
>
> The first, which I will need to post at a later time, is for my prior
> bad
> behavior and unfairly imflamitory and prejuducial comments made on this
> list some several years ago now. I was utterly wrong in my comments
> and assumptions on that occasion, and have been meaning to come here
> and
> post a lengthy apology every since... a task that, for one reason or
> another, has gotten put in the back burner all this time.
>
> I don't even have time to go into my past mistakes or the reasons for
> them
> just now, so that will have to wait, and I will post a more elaborate
> and
> detailed apology for my past rude comments, hopefully in the very near
> future. (Perhaps nobody even remembers or cares anymore what I bad
> things I said here long ago, especially given what seems to have been
> some dramatically woser behavior here recently. But it is a matter of
> honor and I need to set the record straight and apologize properly,
> but with an explanation.)
>
> My second apology is for coming in late to this discussion about the
> pending Inter-RIR policy proposal(s). I am only now becoming aware of
> this and I confess that I haven't had time to study or even think about
> either the proposal or its implications or the stated postions of
> various
> members on the proposal(s). Nontheless, I feel compelled to interject
> myself just for the purpose of asking a few very naive questions...
>
> My starting point is Mr. Noah's recent posting on this topic...
>
> In message <
> CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6+ShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju+vQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:
> CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6%2BShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju%2BvQ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
>
> >So Jordi,
> >
> >I still oppose this policy with strongest terms possible. I still
> believe
> >IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when holders of Idle space
> who are
> >yet to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will trade them
> for
> >some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC. What we need is a
> policy
> >that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the region
> because
> >of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage more space coming
> into
> >the region.
>
> For whatever it is worth, I personally am totally torn on this issue.
> On
> the one hand, I would like to support my friend Jordi, and I do,
> certainly,
> with respect to his anti-hijacking proposal, but perhaps not in the
> case of Inter-RIR transfers. Also, as a longtime fighter against spam
> on the Internet, it is an has been my belief that if all IPv4 space
> were
> transfered, tomorrow, to whomever was the highest bidder, without any
> regard for any other consideration (e.g. geography) then this alone
> would
> put a major and perhaps crippling dent in the practice of so-called
> "snowshoe" spamming... a practice that requires a LOT of very cheap
> IPv4
> address space.
>
> That all having been said, I am also quite sympathetic to the postion
> elaborated by Mr. Noah, and I could even be easily induced to begin
> chanting "Afrinic for Africans!" (And I say this even though I myself
> am not an African, either by residence or birth.)
>
> At the formation, Afrinic was endowed with a great deal of IPv4 address
> space, and I believe that it was everyone's understanding, at that
> time,
> that all these resources would be used for the good of Africans. Much
> has transpired since that time, the Internet itself has changed
> dramatically,
> and an open market for IPv4 address space has now evolved. But despite
> all that, it can be, and perhaps should be argued that the fundamental
> principal should still survive, and that Afrinic space should be used
> to
> the benefit of Africans, and not just as an object of trade, i.e. to
> derive
> a one-time cash transfer to current or historical holders of these
> resources.
>
> But I didn't come here to make speeches.
>
> I said above that I would have a few naive questions, and I do. Now I
> finally come to those. Mostly my questions derive from the fundamental
> charter of Afrinic, which is to say its bylaws:
>
> https://afrinic.net/bylaws<https://afrinic.net/bylaws>
>
> Here are my two questions:
>
> *) Section 3.2 of the Bylaws reads as follows:
>
> 3.2 The income and the capital of the Company shall be applied
> solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and
> no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred,
> directly or indirectly, to the members, whether by way of
> dividend,
> capital distribution or bonus or otherwise.
>
> I wonder if anyone has considered, or reconsidered the implications,
> legal and otherwise, of this (historical?) section of the bylaws,
> particularly now that IPv4 address blocks may be, and quite
> certainly
> are being treated, by major accounting firms, as part of the capital
> assets of the various companies, worldwide, i.e. all those that
> currently buy, sell, trade, and "own" them.
>
> That's my question. Does Section 3.2 of the Bylaws prohibit Afrinic
> from "transferring" IP address blocks to any party AT ALL?
> (Remember,
> I did warn you all above that my questions would be naive!)
>
> *) Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reds as follows:
>
> 6.1 Membership shall be open to:
>
> (i) any Person who is geographically based within, and providing
> services in the African region, and who is engaged in the use of,
> or business of providing, open system protocol network services;
> or
>
> (ii) any other Person who is approved by the Board or the
> members.
>
> I must and do apologize for my abundant ignorance, but I really am
> at
> a loss to understand the implications, if any, of the above quoted
> section of the Bylaws, particularly with respect to IP address
> resources.
>
> If anyone would be so kind as to clarify for me whether or not
> Section
> 6.1 of the Bylaws have any specific implications with respect to IP
> address resources, I sure would appreciate it.
>
> Those are the only two questions I have for now. I look forward to
> being
> enlightened regarding the above two points.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com<http://www.theipv6company.com>
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:58:55 -0700
> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com<mailto:
> rfg at tristatelogic.com>>
> Cc: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> Message-ID: <80420.1561762735 at segfault.tristatelogic.com<mailto:
> 80420.1561762735 at segfault.tristatelogic.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> In message <47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D at consulintel.es<mailto:
> 47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D at consulintel.es>>,
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es>> wrote:
>
> >I think that may clarify your points?
>
> Not really. But thanks for trying.
>
> I raised two points, one of them arguably silly, and the other one
> arguably less so.
>
> My first point was that the plain language of Section 3.2 of the Bylaws
> could be construed to disable Afrinic's ablity to "transfer" any kind of
> "asset" to any party. And if "asset" were, in this context, construed
> broadly, then that would result in the arguably remarkable outcome that
> Afrinic could not "transfer" any IP address resources to any party.
>
> Words have meaning, and not just to lawyers, but also to statesmen and
> to those debating policy decisions. So my hope is that Section 3.2 of
> the Bylaws may at some point be formally clarified so as to remove any
> ambiguity.
>
> My second point was about Section 6.1 of the Bylaws which, on the face
> of it, contains a geographically-limited residence/service requirement.
>
> I want to know if that Section still has any current meaning, and if so,
> what that meaning is.
>
> I do not assme that just because it is written in the Bylaws that this
> section has any actual current operative meaning. It may perhaps not.
> I am just asking the question. (In the fundamental Constitution, as
> amended, of my own home nation, there appear the words "A well regulated
> Militia...", however over time, that specific phrase has been adjudicated
> to have essentially no meaning whatsoever, and thus, no practical
> implications whatsoever. It may perhaps be likewise for Section 6.1
> of the Afrinic Bylaws.)
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:58:03 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> To: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
> Cc: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> Message-ID: <030F0F9B-29C0-4DF2-9147-94E1B2072385 at delong.com<mailto:
> 030F0F9B-29C0-4DF2-9147-94E1B2072385 at delong.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:46 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:47 PM Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
> > Yes Noah, you are right, people don?t play with money.
> >
> >
> > Ooh yes and in the face of some $ and idle space, the idle space will go
> in exchange for some $ and this is simple economics. Space is obtained for
> one reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > And quite frankly ? I?d rather stick to this continent ? rather than
> being forced to take space in an alternative region with another RIR
> because I?m going to have to buy in space one of these days ? and guess
> what ? the space in Africa ? at the rates we?re using it ? doesn?t exist ?
> it does however exist outside.
> >
> >
> > Then we don't need reciprocal but rather one direction (into Africa).
> By the way, do we honestly believe that all allocated/assigned space within
> Africa has been put to good use? Because save for ISP's and content folks
> who assign space on a daily basis to enterprise customers, most of the
> other AfriNIC resource members are heavily using NAT with half of the space
> being under utilized. That space will flow out quick if there is a market
> for it.
>
> Actually, as it stands in most of the other RIRs, you do need reciprocal
> because if your policy is non-reciprocal, their policies won?t allow the
> space to flow into your region.
>
> This isn?t about trying to exploit addresses from Africa, it?s about the
> concept of fairness. Even China?s NIR eventually recognized that the
> one-way policy was preventing them from obtaining resources and switched to
> a bidirectional transfer policy. Since then, they remain a net importer of
> addresses.
>
> > So you can force guys like myself to go buy it through a ripe
> membership, or you can let me bring the space onto the continent.
> >
> >
> > I would not say force but I would rather encourage you who is a member
> of both AfriNIC and RIPE (available space), to actually consider getting
> some from RIPE for some use in Africa.
>
> Why would you want him exporting money to RIPE rather than paying fees to
> AfriNIC for the same space?
>
> If you have the transfer policy, he gets the space from a RIPE member and
> brings it into AfriNIC for administration and pays fees to AfriNIC.
> If you don?t have a transfer policy, he gets the space from RIPE, keeps
> his space in RIPE and all his fees go too RIPE.
>
> What am I missing, Noah?
>
> Owen
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz
> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>>
> > Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 16:30
> > To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>>
> > Cc: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:
> boubakarbarry at gmail.com> <mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:
> boubakarbarry at gmail.com>>>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> <mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es>>>; RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:17 PM Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Are you not asking for the identical thing?
> >
> >
> >
> > You have absolutely zero empirical data about how much space will
> supposedly flow off the continent ? and I strongly dispute that it will ?
> because I don?t believe there is enough of it on the continent as it is to
> even serve current needs.
> >
> >
> >
> > We?re being asked to refuse support for as policy based on fear
> mongering that has no evidence to support said fears
> >
> >
> >
> > There is historical evidence to show that other resources (non-INR) have
> left the continent to the benefit of other regions but Africa. Show them
> the $$$ and they will dance.
> >
> >
> >
> > I had a very interesting discussion with one of the IPv$ brokers and and
> he surely cant wait to trade some of the space in our region. I will not go
> into the details of that discussion but it was enough for me to personally
> stay firm to my opposition of any policy that would open room for resources
> meant to be used in our region being traded fast due to economic reasons
> beyond the real purpose they were meant for which is to help build the
> African Internet Infrastructure.
> >
> >
> >
> > You think its fear mongering, but I can assure you that money is money
> and people dont play around when it comes to money.
> >
> >
> >
> > Noah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:
> boubakarbarry at gmail.com> <mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:
> boubakarbarry at gmail.com>>>
> > Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 16:01
> > To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>>
> > Cc: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz
> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> <mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es>>>; RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > You?re asking for the impossible ? because to get that you?d need to go
> to all the brokers (I assume)
> >
> >
> >
> > So, we jump into the dark, with no parachute (data would have helped
> somehow), all eyes closed? Keeping them open in these circumstances won't
> help anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > Boubakar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz
> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>>
> > Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 14:17
> > To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es> <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es>>>
> > Cc: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC
> needs this policy now!
> >
> >
> >
> > So Jordi,
> >
> > I still oppose this policy with strongest terms possible. I still
> believe IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when holders of Idle space
> who are yet to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will trade
> them for some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC. What we need is a
> policy that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the region
> because of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage more space coming
> into the region.
> >
> > We already have a transfer policy that can facilitate internal transfers
> withing our region and I am keen of getting a report from AfriNIC on how
> this is going.
> >
> > @Jordi, please also share some statistical numbers of available IPv4
> space that would actually come into our region so that we can work with
> figures rather than assumptions.
> >
> > Noah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:01 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd at afrinic.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Sylvain,
> >
> >
> >
> > I?m very thankful for your inputs!
> >
> >
> >
> > We need to make sure that others also participate!
> >
> >
> >
> > See below in-line.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jordi
> >
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El 21/6/19 23:15, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:
> abscoco at gmail.com> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>>>
> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Le vendredi 21 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> a ?crit :
> >
> > Hi Sylvain,
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to thank you, I guess we won a ?strong? contributor to policy
> discussions! (I recall your name from previous discussions, but you?re now
> more active, which is what I wish from every one).
> >
> >
> >
> > :-D ...please don't expose me too much Jordi ;-)
> >
> > I'm just trying to do my best...i'm not any kind of expert :'-(
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I realized that you were not on-site, pity!
> >
> >
> >
> > See below, in-line.
> >
> >
> >
> > Saludos,
> >
> > Jordi
> >
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El 20/6/19 22:37, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:
> abscoco at gmail.com> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>>>
> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please see, inline, below...
> >
> >
> > Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> a ?crit :
> >
> > Hi Sylvain,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry the email was sent before I finished it ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Responding below, in-line.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jordi
> >
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El 20/6/19 15:05, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:
> abscoco at gmail.com> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com<mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>>>
> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>>
> a ?crit :
> >
> > As said, this text is redundant (see specific text below my signature),
> but I don't mind to have explicit text if this facilitate the community to
> reach consensus.
> >
> > Here is my proposal, again, please comment about this ASAP, so we can
> submit a new version already, instead of waiting to be closer to the next
> meeting. This way we can ensure that we get on time the staff impact
> analysis, in case something else need to be amended.
> >
> > "The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically suspended in case the
> balance between IPv4 out-going and in-coming addresses becomes cero."
> >
> >
> >
> > Jordi,
> >
> > ...typos on ?zero? ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah ? my spelling checker often confuses English and Spanish!
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, here is a better version, because this balance is actually
> ?cero? at the start of the implementation, so the text may be misleading,
> we need to define .
> >
> >
> >
> > Alright !
> >
> > I like the new visage of this policy proposal because i really
> appreciate the way you are leading the discussions around it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Believe me, that I always try to heard everybody position and
> accommodate as much as possible, my own thinking/knowledge and the text to
> that (or convincing other if I believe they have a wrong vision). This is
> the way to reach consensus.
> >
> >
> >
> > Go ahead on this way ! i declare my support for such an approach,
> because i'm personaly sharing a similar approach.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hopefully other participants will also share it.
> >
> >
> >
> > While contributing to this thread, what i want is to be sure that this
> policy proposal could be really beneficial to AFRINIC region|community.
> >
> >
> >
> > Same as me, again, the right thing to do.
> >
> > ?The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled once AFRINIC enter into
> Exhaustion Phase 2 (5.4.3.2<http://5.4.3.2> <http://5.4.3.2/<
> http://5.4.3.2/>>). The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically
> suspended in case the number of out-going IPv4 addresses exceeds the
> in-coming ones by six consecutive months.?
> >
> >
> >
> > This version is a good starting point. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand it like this :
> >
> > * This Policy Validity Starting Point : Exhaustion Phase 2
> >
> > * Initial point : balance of zero (nothing in|out)
> >
> > * First auto-stop point : when the in/out balance becomes down
> >
> > ..* After 06 consecutive months {seems to be not interesting for me}
> >
> > ..* Even 02 consecutive months is not really interesting, because we
> miss an #x amount (or %) of resource (IPv4) limit to not reach at any time
> (without any mention of #y consecutive months) to reduce an unwilling risk.
> >
> >
> >
> > This policy shall be able, maybe, to stop a transaction (in course)
> which could conduct us out of a specific low acceptable in/out balance. So
> think about it again please.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is not possible, I believe, unless someone discovers a ?magic way
> to write it down? (which I can?t see now). Anyway, I?m still trying to
> think something before ending this email ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ...quite difficult for sure :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > It's simply confirming us that to reach the *goal* of this (and other)
> policy proposal, we need to think deeply on details. Other meaning : we
> need more active volunteers|participants engaged with sincere contributions.
> >
> >
> >
> > *EXACTLY!* Meetings time is precious and we aren?t allowed to modify the
> text of the proposals on-site, we need inputs way ahead!
> >
> > I?ve not personally been involved in transfers, but I understand the
> process and transfers don?t happen ?in the second?. There are documents to
> review, justification to be reviewed by the two RIRs, contracts to be
> signed, payments to be done (via an escrow), etc. It is a matter of several
> days or weeks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for these clarifications.
> >
> >
> >
> > It may happen that in the middle of a month, several ?negotiations? for
> transfers are running, and some of them in one or the other direction may
> reach or not in time for the end of that month. That?s why I?m suggesting a
> number of months.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...to my knowledge, to better text this situation (and reach the *goal*)
> we must considere that the transfer is started when the parties have sent a
> request to the staff.
> >
> >
> >
> > What we can also do is to add a new section with advices for those who
> will need to start a inter RIR transfer procedure. On that section, we
> shall explain why they must not take more than one (?), two or three months
> to complete the pre-process (b2b negociations). They shall know and
> understand the risk to come too late to the staff to request a transfer ;
> because the negociation phase took too much time... :-/
> >
> >
> >
> > I don?t think this is possible. Transfers have a lot of ?business talks?
> among the parties. Only once the parties have reached an agreement, they
> need to go into the process. You could do on the other way around, it can
> be a mix of both. I don?t think the community must provide a rule on that,
> because this has not been done in other RIRs. If we try to setup our own
> rule, then our policy will have mismatches with the other policies and then
> we may be in the situation that they are not reciprocal, or the existing
> procedures in the other regions need to be re-worked, why they are going to
> do it, now that we are the last one?.
> >
> > If the staff tries to evaluate the transfers at a single point in time,
> it may be misleading as some operations in the opposite direction may be
> being processed. The RIRs may have an ?alert? of a possible transfer,
> depending on the direction, I don?t know if the exiting coordination
> systems allow them to check those (this will sort out the problem), but
> still will not be precise, as some other folks may be ?negotiating? a
> transfer and have not yet informed the relevant RIRs until the parties
> agree.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, we need a clarification from the staff. But before that, i propose
> something below to address the problem...
> >
> >
> >
> > If we stop the policy immediately the balance becomes ?bad? for AFRINIC,
> then a transfer in the other direction will not be able to happen. You see
> the point.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok you are right ! But let me try other possibility|solution i see : are
> we still prioritising incoming transfers ? :-)
> >
> > To be sure, i think we can include a similar (to the following) text
> (about transfer procedure) :
> >
> >
> >
> > ?Initiators of a transfer must start the procedure earlier by submitting
> their request. The transfer procedure is concluded after a cycle of $four
> months, devided in two periods of $two months for each. Initiators submit
> their case to the staff and wait for the staff to give their conclusion at
> least $two months after the "submissions period" and not more than $four
> months (including the "verification period"). The staff will collect the
> cases (submissions|requests) during the "submissions period". The staff can
> start to study the cases immediately, after receiving them, until the end
> of the "verification period" which is coinciding with the next "submission
> period"; while collecting other cases. Those in line with the CPM (policy
> compliant) at the end of the correspondent "verification period". The staff
> should focus to the goal : keep the in/out balance exceding. Incoming
> transfer submissions shall be prioritised and treated separately.?
> >
> >
> >
> > I don?t think this will work, as I just explained a few reasons above.
> In principle I will not support this.
> >
> >
> >
> > With this bit of text, i'm trying to solve a problem you raised above.
> >
> >
> >
> > It does, at least, the following :
> >
> > * To change the approach in considering that
> >
> > * We can considerably diminish the risk by allowing the staff to study
> the transfer submissions (cases) during the same dedicated "verifications
> period" (even just during $one month if possible) and
> >
> > * Inform all the requestors only after the "verifications period"
> >
> > * With the *goal* balance in mind :-)
> >
> > * Special treathment for incoming transfers ;-)
> >
> > * A cycle of four months within two equal periods for submissions and
> verifications
> >
> > * More control of the balance
> >
> > * Focus : *goal* balance
> >
> > * ...
> >
> >
> >
> > See below ? it is not needed. I think, just you misunderstood my point 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > We need to ?take a bit of risk?, considering that the real risk, looking
> at the numbers I?ve presented is really low.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree, but just a *bit of risk* :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > I wasn't able to follow your first presentation during the PPM (Public
> Policy Meeting), just the Hijacking one. Please share the slides of all
> your policy proposal presentations.
> >
> >
> >
> > And now I realize this is part of the problem for your questions.
> Please, pause this discussion until you?re able to see the video of my
> presentation and the slides! I guess then you may change a bit your view
> about the risk, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > I already asked the staff (previous email) to make sure they are
> published tomorrow. I think they deserve the break today :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that ?nobody? from AFRINIC is forced to sell. Who will sell?
> Those that for example, reduce or close the business, or those that deploy
> IPv6, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok it walk samely for incoming and outgoing transfers. Considering that
> we have a seller and a buyer on both side transfers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Who will buy? Those that go to AFRINIC, ask for more, can?t get all what
> they need, and try to get the rest of their needs via transfers.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the logic here? Why ARIN is the major donator to all the other
> RIRs?
> >
> >
> >
> > ...to what i recall [1] they still have too much unused IPv4 addresses.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we don?t take a risk, we lose.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...i'm ok with that, but let's try to find the lowest risk :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > This means that if one month there are ?more addresses going out?, it
> happens again the next month, and it happens again by a third month and so
> on, then is suspended.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...so monthly public reports should be needed (for the community to
> follow-up and for more transparency) ?
> >
> >
> >
> > If yes, let's clearly state|text it also.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe there is already a public AFRINIC reporting of the Inter-RIR
> transfers, so we will see this reported ASAP any transfer is completed I
> think.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can someone share an uri ?
> >
> > I think we must insert this requirement to the relevant section of the
> CPM, if not existent.
> >
> >
> >
> > If this is not the case (can please the staff confirm?), I fully agree
> (for both Inter and Intra-RIR) and will add a specific text so they are
> reported, not just monthly, but with each completed transfer.
> >
> >
> >
> > You are welcome ! Thanks :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Which this web page, any member, the board, etc., can tell the staff at
> any point, if they don?t realize by themselves, ?hey what is going on here?
> Are we good with the transfers??.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, transparency and more power to the community ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > I?ve also added a condition to make sure that this policy only starts
> once we are in the next exhaustion phase.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, you shall consider that, if AFRINIC service|community doesn't gain
> anything in the balance this policy should not be needed...
> >
> > And that should be clearly stated.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with that, but I don?t think we need to put that in the policy
> text, this should be in the text of the policy justification.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...wasn't the point here. Apologize but English is not my first tongue.
> >
> >
> >
> > What i was (trying) advising|suggesting is to ensure to text it the
> clearest possible ; in order to remove any ambiguity.
> >
> > I'm glad that you have seen, by yourself, that there was a problem with
> the first zero state.
> >
> >
> >
> > Got it, thanks! And nothing to excuse!
> >
> > Note that in order to make it simpler, I've used a text that instead of
> talking about %, is stating that the balance of in/out is reached. This way
> we ensure that the total number of the "region IPv4 addresses" never can go
> down regarding the actual figures, so Africa never will lose addresses. Do
> you think this is good enough?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok after policing this, it seems to be necessary to clearly state,
> *?policily?*, that the staff must follow-up (automatically) the in/out
> balance, with regular (automated) public reports and a special (auto) stop
> report (for the zero state).
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how to "policy-ze" this idea. Perhaps with a separate
> policy ?
> >
> >
> >
> > I?m not completely sure to understand 100% what you mean, but let me try
> anyway: Staff is mandated to follow the policies. So, during the
> implementation the staff will make the necessary provisions so they get an
> alarm when the balance of in-coming vs out-going addresses becomes cero. It
> may be done automatically anyway, but at least they should get an ?alarm?.
> The operational details about ?how? to implement this are outside of the
> policy scope.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok i am in accord with the logic of separation between policy rules and
> their operational implementations. I don't want us to ?policy-ze? the
> implementation phase of any policy :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > But you probably miss something in my above suggestion.
> >
> >
> >
> > The point is that, if you don't clearly ask, via a policy, for a regular
> (public) report (for example) from the staff, you could not be sure to get
> it when it shall be needed. Because, without a specific policy provision,
> it will be just out of their duties...
> >
> >
> >
> > Let?s try it again, based on all the discussion (the numbers are just to
> split the text now, they will be correctly placed in the relevant part of
> the policy proposal when we ?reach consensus? about this text:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Each time a transfer is completed, the relevant,
> non-confidential information will be automatically published in a specific
> web page, including at least: Date of the transfer, transferred addresses,
> source organization and RIR, destination organization and RIR.
> >
> > 2. The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled once AFRINIC enter into
> Exhaustion Phase 2 (5.4.3.2<http://5.4.3.2> <http://5.4.3.2/<
> http://5.4.3.2/>>).
> >
> > 3. The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically suspended in case
> the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming ones by six
> consecutive months.
> >
> > 4. The staff can provisionally suspend any suspicious operation
> that creates a big unbalance against AFRINIC, until the board takes a
> decision.
> >
> > See point 4. If there is any suspicious unbalance, the suspension
> temporary suspension of *that* operation protects our pool of addresses,
> for a few days (I guess the board in that case should call for a decision
> by email or by conference call), and meanwhile, it can be observed if other
> ?incoming? operations will restore the balance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Possible solution, thanks for the effort you produced above. But there
> is still more than acceptable risk on it (including point 4) ; because the
> next new transfer request can come after the *few* days of suspension.
> >
> >
> >
> > The point here is that the staff is still able to suspend any suspicious
> operation. Not just one. Is not that clear my text? (any)
> >
> >
> >
> > Please look how to also consider the alternative solution i have
> proposed above. I don't need you to keep that text as it is, but to use it
> to figure how it could be merged with yours and reduce the risk (no
> suspension with it).
> >
> > __
> >
> > [1]: MIT and their 8 million IPv4 addresses ?
> https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html
> <
> https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html>
> <
> https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html
> <
> https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html
> >>
> >
> >
> > Friendly,
> >
> > --sb.
> >
> >
> >
> > I really believe this is not needed, it can be done applying the bylaws
> (very recently ARIN board suspended in emergency a policy, so it is a good
> demonstration that this works even if is not in the policy) but I?m happy
> to keep this text if this means that we are more unconcerned this way.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> >
> > **********************************************
> > IPv4 is over
> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > http://www.theipv6company.com<http://www.theipv6company.com> <
> http://www.theipv6company.com/<http://www.theipv6company.com/>>
> > The IPv6 Company
> >
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>_______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190628/0764a333/attachment.html
> <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190628/0764a333/attachment.html
> >>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 153, Issue 235
> *************************************
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com<http://www.theipv6company.com>
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190629/8330f034/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 153, Issue 243
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190629/b7a81e67/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list