[rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 10, 2019, at 14:01 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> In practice this situation you describe is very hard to happen, we cannot have things in place to treat the very unlikely situation and that Phase 2 is about to happen soon. Until there the vast majority or organization (really the vast!) can get addresses from AfriNic fine. 

> 

So the small number of large operators should just be screwed over and enjoy it during that time?

The fact that the number of operators being screwed over isn’t so much relevant when the number of users being screwed over by proxy in that process is so large.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the numbers in  Africa to present an accurate example, so I will draw from what I do know.

There are maybe 20 or so major providers in North America and thousands of smaller ones. However, if you look at the customer base served, you’ll see that those 20 or so major providers probably represent close to 80% of the customers in the area.

> I hardly doubt one can justify anything more than a /13 at once at the moment. Even in a remote hypothesis that is possible the organization can receive the /13 and work with that until transfers are allowed as per Jordi's proposal that has been changed to start with Phase 2 is triggered and that organization will be able to transfer whatever else is needed. 

> 


Again, I don’t know the exact situation in Africa, but I can easily see major expansions of the type being conducted by at least a handful of providers in Africa, the most underserved continent in the world, as requiring significantly more than a /13.

Even if we assume residential only and only a /32 per household, a /13 only serves roughly 512,000 households and that’s if you can somehow make it nearly 100% efficient with no addressing overhead (pretty unlikely in any real world scenario).

> One rule for all and much simpler.

> 

Sure, but that rule should include the ability to transfer if you choose. Obviously until AfriNIC hits Phase 2 (which will happen soon as you mention), transfer would be undesirable except for a small number of very large organizations. However, once phase 2 comes into play, Likely, we will hit phase 2 before this policy could be ratified at this point anyway.

Once we hit phase 2, surely the scenario I describe becomes not only probable, but common place. Trying to run an ISP of any size by repeatedly requesting /22s and using them up is absurd.

Owen


> Fernando

> 

> On 10/11/2019 18:51, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> 

>> 

>>> On Nov 10, 2019, at 10:51 , Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com <mailto:virtual.borg at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Le dim. 10 nov. 2019 à 21:58, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>> a écrit :

>>> Hi Chevalier.

>>> 

>>> Please allow me to be blunt.  That's short sighted.

>>> 

>>> We cannot transfer IN from other regions unless we allow OUT.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Agree 100%, 

>>> Then you have no problems with wait till all RIRs are equal run out before we etablish full in and out transfer policy no?

>>>  

>>> All the other RIRs require reciprocal *compatible* policies, which means bi-directional transfers.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> All RIRs don't all have equal amount of free space. Big difference

>> 

>> Depending on your definition here, 4 out of 5 have exactly equal amount == 0.

>> 

>>> Not allowing this means we can't get resources in either.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> While AfriNIC have free space, operators don't need it

>>> When it run out, then we can allow transfer policy

>> 

>> This isn’t entirely true.

>> 

>> It’s possible that an operator needs more than they can get via current AfriNIC policies due to “soft landing” limitations.

>> 

>> In such a case, said operator might prefer to transfer a large amount of space in even if they are paying for it on the market

>> rather than suffer with the small amount of space they can get from AfriNIC due to the current restrictions.

>> 

>> Is there a valid reason to preclude such a transfer which, in reality, prolongs the AfriNIC free pool to the benefit of other

>> organizations in Africa?

>> 

>> Owen

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20191110/4b2366ec/attachment.html>