Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 15:32:15 UTC 2019
On 19/08/2019 03:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> By not having a transfer’s policy, you’re just facilitating those
> transfers to keep occurring, which is bad for the region. We don’t
> know if those transfers are being done for Afrinic legacy resources,
> or by “bad” employees of existing ISPs, the ISPs itself, or
> combinations of those options. Because they don’t get properly
> registered, it is impossible to know.
>
As mentioned before I don't consider this a reason for any propose to
pass. If there are transfers that occur "under the table" the people or
organizations doing them are the wrong ones, not the RIR for not having
a policy that allows. They are violating current rules and they must
bind to them or be sanctioned, therefore there are actions that can be
taken against these wrong actions.
>
> The data you’re asking was in my presentation.
>
> Most of the transfers are leaving ARIN towards the other regions.
>
Towards other regions that have already advanced to a Phase 2 like state
or beyond, not the case of AfriNIC. If that would be the case they were
allowed right now chances are much higher that resources escape Africa
than they come from other regions. This is not just an opinion, but
logic. That's one of the reasons I have been saying this brings *zero
benefits* to Africa at the present.
>
> Also, if you have followed the discussion in the list, I’ve proposed
> to add some text to the policy proposal, to make sure that only starts
> when there aren’t more resources in Afrinic, and with some measures to
> closely watch the situation.
>
I see your efforts and good will to get reach consensus on this
proposal, but I don't really think it is the time for it, even straight
after it enters Phase 2.
I am not against having a Inter-RIR transfer policy at some point and I
recognize the need of it when the RIR reaches a different scenario. This
is just not the case for AfriNIC now and only exposes it to a risk of IP
space to looted from the region.
I refuse to believe that without a policy like this the region will stop
growing, simple because it is still possible to get a fair amount of
addresses for local organizations who need. And even when it enters
Phase 2 there are multiple alternatives. When that happens we can
discuss that again based on the *new reality* that will give us better
support to evaluate if that will really bring advantages at that point.
As illustrated in other messages LACNIC region survived 2 years without
a Inter-RIR transfer policy after it went into a Phase 2 (in that case
even more restricted than the one scheduled for Africa - only new
entrants) and I have no knowledge of any organization that went bankrupt
because of that.
Finally with regards the point suggested in the other message to suspend
the policy if outgoing IPv4 exceeds the incoming one by six month it
showa there are doubts if may happen or not, so if there are doubts it
is better just not to do.
Again African organizations still don't need to go to market to get IP
space, but can get directly from the RIR.
Therefore I propose you abandon this proposal for now and re-present it
in the future when the scenario changes and a policy like this is really
needed and will bring benefits to the region.
Best regards
Fernando
> As more IPv6 deployment happens outside of Africa (and this is a
> reality), more resources can come in to Africa, not in the other way
> around. Also, again, note that the major donor is ARIN. If what you
> say is true, then it will not be ARIN the major donor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 18/8/19 14:31, "DANIEL NANGHAKA" <dndannang at gmail.com
> <mailto:dndannang at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have been following the IPv4 Inter-RIR legacy Resource Transfer
> discussion right from the start. I am in strong disagreement towards
> this policy. This policy does not have a benefit for the Africa Region.
>
> Following the presentation at the AFRINIC Meeting in Kampala, it was
> highlighted that some of AFRINICs resources were sold on the black
> market. The challenge here is that there is no clear record of which
> resources are not utilised and the ones that are utilised. The
> entities that are in ownership of these resources should provide an
> evaluation of the respective assignments - resources that are not
> being utilised should be brought back to the AFRINIC Pool for
> re-assignment.
>
> Secondly, with reference to Inter RIR transfer policy, there is a need
> to clearly assess the RIRs that have passed this policy and evaluate
> where these resources are going. I am interested in the numbers.
>
> For Africa's case, there is still a need for IPv4 resource and we as a
> region we should allow a smooth transition to IPv6 and not force
> depletion. Africa's digital economy needs to grow and when some
> policies are passed Africa's digital economy will be retarded.
>
> From an economic perspective, the forces of demand and supply apply.
> The high demand for IPv4 resources in other regions shows that the
> value of IPv4 remains strong and a necessity. Every Network Engineer
> knows that IPv4 is needed for IPv6 translation. This IPv4 inter RIR
> policy when passed, will lead to a quick depletion in less than 2
> months which I think when passed will be a big risk to the mandate of
> AFRINIC's formation in managing of the Africa Region resources. What
> will be the mandate of AFRINIC after the IPv4 Policy?
>
> The IPv4 resources were allocated for Africa then why for sure do we
> want to transfer what we were given. This is like selling our digital
> economy.
>
> Based on my opinions above, I strongly do not support this policy.
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka
>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 21:14, <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
> 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: RPD Digest, Vol 155, Issue 9 (Amutuhaire Robert)
> 2. Re: New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy
> Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01" (Andrew Alston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 19:50:48 +0300
> From: Amutuhaire Robert <arobert49 at gmail.com
> <mailto:arobert49 at gmail.com>>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 155, Issue 9
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAEHKB_wzZtvO+ySU4zCGTZ8KR5_xF8AXZUBS9X=7+paZWZAA_A at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:7%2BpaZWZAA_A at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy
> Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01" (Fernando Frediani)
>
> Thank you, Mr. Fernando, for the great digest
> I do agree with you. I also think allowing inter-RIR transfers
> really does
> open wide a door to fraud and misuse and any other unexpected
> circumstances. It's just so risky
>
> Sincerely,
> Amutuhaire Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 3:00 PM <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
> > 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: New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy
> > Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> > AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01" (Fernando Frediani)
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:43:36 -0300
> > From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR
> > Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> > AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"
> > Message-ID: <a9363560-d392-21e4-f70f-5552bc12a502 at gmail.com
> <mailto:a9363560-d392-21e4-f70f-5552bc12a502 at gmail.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> >
> > 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 section 5.4.7.1 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of RPD Digest, Vol 155, Issue 9
> > ***********************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190817/d890b75d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 18:11:28 +0000
> From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
> To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>, "rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>"
> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR
> Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"
> Message-ID:
>
> <DBBPR03MB5415BE0A0EDDEB9CAB9628BEEEAE0 at DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
> <mailto:DBBPR03MB5415BE0A0EDDEB9CAB9628BEEEAE0 at DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Fernando ?
>
> The moment phase 2 kicks in ? an ISP will be limited to extremely
> small blocks ? transition mechanisms to IPv6 are *NOT* always a
> viable alternative ? and this was my point ? there are a TON of
> services for which there is NO ipv6 equivalency at the moment ?
> transition mechanisms do NOT facility the use of services that are
> entirely bound to IPv4 at this point. I can list multiple
> examples. The solution to this problem is to get feature parity
> between V4 and V6 ? but we?re a long from being there. The
> solution to this is actually largely found in SR ? but, since
> there is at least one global vendor who has stated categorically
> that they will not be writing any further control plane code to
> facility MPLS in relation to V6 ? this becomes a problem ? unless
> you implement SRv6 to get the feature parity ? and considering
> that SRv6 in its original form imposes a significantly higher
> overhead on bandwidth than even the ATM cell tax used to ? that?s
> not viable. So the next option after that would be using SRv6 CRH
> or SRv6 uSID to remove the overhead ? unfortunately that right now
> is a long way from happening ? since its currently stalled in the
> SPRING WG and there is a deadlock between the approaches and the
> attempts to mediate and get inter-op so that we can proceed with
> something we need ? hit problems because one of the vendors
> involved has stated categorically that they have no interest in
> inter-op on the other standard.
>
> As such ? You cannot tell ISP?s to ?transition? until there is
> feature parity on the services they need ? you also cannot
> restrict the ability of an ISP to grow and to function and to
> provide services. If you do that ? rest assured ? the ISP in
> question is going to go and find space from somewhere ? and if
> they cannot transfer it in ? because the community refuses to give
> them a transfer policy ? they will either go and establish in
> another region and bring in the space that way ? which takes money
> off the continent ? or they will get the space ?under the table?.
> Rest assured ? NOT having a transfer policy ? puts service
> providers that require v4 because of the lack of parity between V4
> and V6 at risk ? and those ISP?s *WILL* find a way to get space ?
> the only question is ? will the methods used to get that space
> benefit the continent ? or result in ISP?s using alternative RIR?s
> because the RIR that is meant to serve their needs is failing to
> do so?
>
> I would *LOVE* to get rid of V4 on my network ? is it practical?
> No ? not until the feature parity is there ? and it simply isn?t ?
> which is one of the reasons I?ve been putting so much work into
> stuff like SR. As I said at the V6 Ops group in Montreal earlier
> this year ? if you wanna know what hampers IPv6 deployment ? which
> would solve some of these problems ? it?s the fact that *THERE IS
> NO FEATURE PARITY*
>
> Andrew
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, 17 August 2019 19:36
> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR
> Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
> AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"
>
>
> 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:
> https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-1-0#s5_4<https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-1-0#s5_4>)
>
>
>
> * 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:
>
> * To 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)
> * To do traffic engineering when LDPv6 is dead to the point
> where it?s unusable
> * To 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 5.4.7.1<http://5.4.7.1> 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.
>
>
> *
>
> * 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 gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>><mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> Date: Friday, 16 August 2019 at 22:45
> To: "rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>"<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> 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 section
> 5.4.7.1<http://5.4.7.1> 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 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>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190817/fa92fe15/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 155, Issue 12
> ************************************
>
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> 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
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190819/ec814cae/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list