[rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy

[Fernando Frediani]

This small number of very large organizations *who are able to justify a 
/13 or more* are very unlikely to exist in Africa right now. And as 
mentioned, even if it's the case this doesn't stop them to keep working 
and serving their customers, it's not a binary thing. They can still 
receive a /13 and keep working until Phase 2 is triggered soon. If the 
few that may exist get - and are able to justify a /13 at once - then 
Phase 2 will happen sooner and they will be able to transfer whatever 
else they need afterwards. I think that is very reasonable and works 
fine even for these unlikely situations.

As mentioned the real numbers are the key to this and only staff can 
provide them, but I don't think it's even necessary to bother really. By 
looking at the latest NRO numbers from September that doesn't seem the case.

Fernando

On 10/11/2019 19:31, Owen DeLong wrote:

>

>

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

>> <mailto: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

>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20191110/02ad17a5/attachment-0001.html>