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

[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"

Mark Elkins mje at
Mon Aug 19 09:49:10 UTC 2019

Hi Jordi,

I fully support your transfer proposals..

I agree that there are some fundamentalists out there but please don't
let that stop you. Please keep the two proposals alive (the one for
legacy transfers only - which if passed - will prove you are correct;
and the other that covers non-legacy address space).

If we don't have such transfer proposals - then growth will stagnate in
our region. I don't want to see that. I want to see continued growth!

On 2019/08/19 11:14, Mike Silber wrote:

> Hi Jordi


> While I support the proposal, I think it may be time to give up.


> This has turned into a debate of “principles" and no facts or logic

> will be allowed to get in its way.


> Once we descend to this level - progress is impossible and the

> fundamentalists have won.


> Regards


> Mike


>> On 19 Aug 2019, at 08:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>> Fernando,

>> Just look at numbers. Those are not hypothesis, but facts. The

>> numbers show that the resources are going from the regions that have

>> “more IPv4” and have deployed “more IPv6” to the other regions.

>> There is no possible explanation why this will become different if

>> Afrinic adopts and inter-RIR policy. Do you think ARIN suddently will

>> stop deploying IPv6 and look for IPv4 addresses form Africa? No sense!

>> Regards,


>> Jordi


>> @jordipalet


>> El 17/8/19 18:44, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at

>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>> escribió:


>> Hi

>> This is not about a "hypothesis" but rather a quiet obvious and logic

>> thing to face. If Africa is the only region that still has space left

>> for its members and the rest of the world is seeking for more IP

>> space at lower cost it makes total sense for someone to think in

>> trying to get IP space form this region and send them out to where is

>> interesting to them if such proposal ever reach consensus. Luckily I

>> don't think it will be the case given the number of oppositions

>> raised and good points put against it.

>> I think maybe you misunderstood some of what has been said and

>> discussed about this topic but I will try to answer some of the

>> points raised.


>> On 17/08/2019 09:52, Andrew Alston wrote:

>>> Hi Fernando, Let me ask you a few questions

>>> -You say AfriNIC still has space – yet because of the soft landing –

>>> the size of allocations for which a member can apply are extremely

>>> smaller – especially once phase 2 kicks in – so – for those that

>>> need more than this – where do you propose they get it in the

>>> absence of this policy and the absence of blocks for sale on the

>>> continent?

>> This is not true. In the current phase an African member who needs IP

>> space can just request, justify and will get the addresses needed.

>> Just when it enters phase 2 it will still be possible to get a

>> smaller block and at that point ISPs should have done their homework

>> to prioritize the addresses they already hold to transition

>> mechanisms rather than the way they were used to use in the past.

>> That is probably the reason this is called soft landing. Nobody can

>> be get by surprise.

>> The most important is that as it stands now African members can get

>> IP space normally, they don't need to go to the market to get extra

>> space and it is a reason that reinforces that this proposal brings

>> zero benefit to the region.

>> And the fact local members can still get the space they request, this

>> proposal should not pass, otherwise it will be a even higher risk of

>> fraud from external organizations at the current Phase of IPv4

>> Exhaustion.

>> (Source:



>>> -How does the interest in companies coming from outside to get space

>>> have anything to do with the companies on the continent needing to

>>> get space from outside?  Please explain the correlation

>> I believe it is pretty much explained above, but lets go a bit more

>> into it. Companies from other regions may find cheaper to open a

>> "fake" or "virtual" company in Africa region to get addresses from

>> here and afterwards request a transfer to another RIR where the

>> address will really be used by them. The cost to buy a /24 or a /22

>> in the market makes the economics pretty worth for fraudsters to do

>> all necessary and bureaucratic work to open up and fake company in

>> Africa in the attempt to get these addresses.


>>> -Please explain how having a transfer policy creates a more

>>> fraudulent environment than people who take space off the continent

>>> without updating the whois records and outside of the auspicious of

>>> the RIR – and how you would ever prove that is actually happening or

>>> not.

>>> -You state that those who transfer outside of the system should be

>>> sanctioned – under what laws – please cite legal system and case

>>> law? Last I checked there was no legal right to determine who can

>>> use an integer on the internet

>> I think maybe you misunderstand either what I said or how the RIR

>> system works. When any organization becomes a RIR member and receives

>> a block, it is obliged to use it according to the current rules,

>> policies and behave according to the bylaws and the contract they

>> signed and agreed. There are cases where violations on the policy or

>> how the organization handle the IP space can get these resources

>> revoked from the organization. This works like that on any RIR, not

>> just in AfriNIC.

>> Therefore if the current policies don't allow transfers "under the

>> table" (quiet obvious) and if such wrong attitude and violation of

>> the policy proved the resource holder doesn't have usage for that IP

>> space it can be revoked by the RIR. Simple as that !


>>> -With regards to “If people run out of ipv4 and cant get more they

>>> can use ipv6” – please explain how:

>>> oTo do L2VPN circuits in the absence of v4 and the absence of law

>>> end hardware to do EVPN (and lack of support for EVPN-VPWS)

>>> oTo do traffic engineering when LDPv6 is dead to the point where

>>> it’s unusable

>>> oTo do L3VPN – which currently in every vendor I’ve tested requires

>>> a V4 underlay

>> I am not sure what you are trying to say with that.

>> When an organization cannot get **any more address** (therefore only

>> after phase 2 is finished- a while from now) it means it still has

>> address to use or re-used for different and more efficient proposed

>> as transition mechanisms and until that happens the dependency on

>> IPv4 will be lower than it is now a days. Still on such scenarios

>> there are still alternatives as for example the mentioned in the

>> previous message to create a new policy to assign that last /12

>> revered under section for new entrants and for IPv6

>> transition mechanisms as it exists in other RIRs.

>> At that point maybe will be a better time to discuss a Inter-RIR

>> transfer policy again with much less risk that addresses will be

>> looted from the region.


>>> o

>>> -The story about space being taken out of Africa – Please explain

>>> why the world would come pillaging Africa – when Africa has such a

>>> tiny pool to start with – is it not far easier to go and buy

>>> elsewhere in the world where unused blocks are common and available


>> Explained above about the economics that make it worth for fraudster

>> to come to the region, establish a company to get addresses and then

>> request the transfer out of the region. This is not just a point of

>> view, but pretty much an easy mathematics question.


>> Said that, I am unable to see **any benefit** such proposal bring to

>> African region at the current scenario. Instead it only bring risks

>> (in the current Phase 1 even higher risks) and maybe the only

>> beneficiaries to this policy will be the IP transfer companies and as

>> far as I know it's not the mission of any RIR to create policies to

>> benefit such entities.


>> Fernando


>>> -

>>> So – once we get the answers to all of this – then – we can

>>> potentially test your hypothesis as stated below – but until then –

>>> I can’t see your logic

>>> Andrew

>>> *From:*Fernando Frediani<fhfrediani at>

>>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>

>>> *Date:*Friday, 16 August 2019 at 22:45

>>> *To:*"rpd at" <mailto:rpd at><rpd at>

>>> <mailto:rpd at>

>>> *Subject:*Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR

>>> Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)

>>> AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"

>>> Hello


>>> I want to position myself against this proposal for the many reasons

>>> below.


>>> First I believe this does not bring any benefits to Africa region

>>> allowing IP space to go out of the region and the same way Africa is not

>>> in need yet to receive IP space from other regions as AfriNIC still has

>>> availability for assignment to its members.


>>> Allowing inter-RIR transfers opens a wide door for fraud by

>>> organizations from other continents establishing a "virtual" or "fake"

>>> offices in Africa, request some IP space and send them out of the region

>>> afterwards.

>>> As AfriNIC is the only RIR who still has IP space available for its

>>> members they should be protected and made sure they are assigned only

>>> for real usage in the continent.

>>> It is pretty reasonable to think that the major interest will be in

>>> companies outside Africa to come to the region, get IP space and send it

>>> out than the contrary as AfriNIC members can get IP space directly from

>>> the RIR. Why would members need it coming from other regions then ?

>>> Also the 12 months period to request receive more IP space from AfriNIC

>>> is quiet short in my view and make it worth in order to increase fraud

>>> for those who wish to send these addresses out of the region.


>>> Even if it's expected AfriNIC's IP space to run out anytime soon I still

>>> don't believe it is a reason to allow inter-RIR transfers. In LACNIC

>>> region for example it exhausted IPv4 space for existing members in 2017

>>> and only very recently after 2 years the inter-RIR transfer has reached

>>> consensus there, so I think this type of proposal should be re-evaluated

>>> later on in the future when the scenario changes and when there are real

>>> benefits for Africa region.


>>> The fact that transfers happen "under the table" I don't consider this

>>> as a strong argument in favor of this change. Transfers under the table

>>> are wrong and against the current policies therefore those who may be

>>> doing it are the wrong ones, not the RIR for not allowing such

>>> transfers. Any organization who received IP space from AfriNIC must bind

>>> to the current policies and that includes not to do transfers that are

>>> not allowed. If they insist on that, sanctions must be applied against

>>> them, therefore there are mechanisms to properly fix this issue, if it

>>> exists.


>>> The deployment of IPv6 is not impacted for AfricNIC members for the

>>> current scenario as IPv4 is still available to be requested by

>>> organizations for usage by transition mechanisms for example. Even when

>>> that is not possible anymore there are still alternatives as for

>>> example: 1) re-use of already hold IP space, 2) establishment of a

>>> dedicated pool for specific usage with IPv6 transition mechanisms or 3)

>>> prioritization of new entrants, the last two for example based on the

>>> /12 reserved for future use as stated by section5.4.7.1

>>> <>of the

>>> AfriNIC's Exhaustion Policy


>>> I also second a comment made by another person in this discussion here:

>>> "Allowing Inter-RIR transfers 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".


>>> Therefore I don't think is good or necessary for Africa region to allow

>>> inter-RIR transfers and put the RIR under the risk of its address space

>>> to go out of the region unnecessarily and in an unneeded scenario.


>>> Best regards

>>> Fernando





>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>




>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing

>> listRPD at

>> <mailto:RPD at>


>> **********************************************

>> IPv4 is over

>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>> <>

>> 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 <mailto:RPD at>




> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

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

More information about the RPD mailing list