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!

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Jul 1 05:29:13 UTC 2019

> On Jun 30, 2019, at 14:06 , Noah <noah at> wrote:
> 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. 

Well, IANA doesn’t have anything left to give. Brokers, OTOH, represent people that do. So, I suppose it depends on your shopping preference.

Personally, I prefer to go to a store that has inventory rather than one with empty shelves, but if you like empty shelves, then by all means, do your IPv4 shopping at IANA.

> 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. 

Look, I know it’s popular to malign brokers and certainly there’s no question that when it comes to their policy preferences, many of them are out to reduce friction in the market place at all costs.

However, in fairness, we must recognize that brokers are commercial entities providing a service of value to the community, matching buyers who need addresses to sellers who have the ability to renumber out of part of their space and hand it off. Most organizations aren’t going to take on that level of effort without some form of compensation, hence the market.

As a general rule, the brokers aren’t buying or selling the registrations of address space. They act as facilitators, much like a real estate agent doesn’t buy or sell properties, but rather does the complicated parts of the transaction on behalf of the buyer and/or seller.

Most brokers are not inherently evil, are not looking to exploit the vast IPv4 wealth of the AfriNIC region (most view this as a laughable misnomer), and are not looking to traffic your babies into slavery or prostitution. It’s just a business like any other.


> ./noah
> neo - network engineering and operations
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at <mailto:rfg at>> wrote:
> In message <539D1303-4A80-4ACB-A70A-9CBD8E4C3B73 at <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at>
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list