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

[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!

Noah noah at
Sun Jun 30 21:06:39 UTC 2019

Hi Ronald,

Thanks for jumping into this discussion and now its even getting more
interesting :-)

While, I have am yet to respond to some of the clarifications sought from
me based on my opposition of this policy, I am keen on hearing some clear
answers from the author of the proposed policy regarding some of the issues
Ronald has raised.

Meanwhile, the below came though by means of IANA and not through IPv$
broker-based transfer policies.
41/8     Apr 2005
197/8     Oct 2008
105 / 8     Nov 2010
102 / 8     Feb 2011

Wouldn't it be much wiser for AfriNIC to lobby on behalf of its members for
more space into the continent rather than through a broker based mechanism.

I mean, who do the brokers benefit if not themselves? In Rabat in Morocco
in 2008, I stood on the floor during the PPM meeting and expressed my
distaste for IPv$ because I clearly understood the impact that a single
IPv4 address can have socioeconomically. Therefore if there is
knowledge/whispers within the African Internet community about some
resource members who somehow managed to forge their application for
membership and ended up getting resources which are being monetized instead
of being used to build Internet Infrastructure in the continent, then this
policy proposal becomes even more riskier for Africa to say the least.

neo - network engineering and operations

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at>

> In message <539D1303-4A80-4ACB-A70A-9CBD8E4C3B73 at>, Jordi
> wrote:
> >As said, this is something that the legal counsel should clarify.
> I can only say that I hope that -someone- will provide a definitive
> answer.
> I should perhaps clarify that my interest in knowing the
> current operative meaning of Section 6.1 of the Afrinic Bylaws
> is a consequence of my belief that more than one party that is
> located outside of the Afrinic region and that is providing -no-
> services whatsoever within the Afrinic region are already enjoying
> the benefits arising from the exclusive use of Afrinic-assigned
> IPv4 number resources.
> In a couple of cases, in particular, this is troubling to me for
> various specific reasons.   Now I just want to know if the relevant
> specific assignments even comport with the Afrinic Bylaws, as
> written and as currently construed.  Do they or don't they?  I am
> still seeking a definitive answer.
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list