Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 13:33:11 UTC 2021
I get shocked every time I see people trying to make it normal things
like IP Leasing or usage of resources out of the region, as it it was
something from the day by day. The only thing I can think of this is
because that may be interesting financially to them despite it goes in
the totally wrong direction of how IP space has always been treated and
should keep be, always remembering it is not something the belong to any
organization but is in custody of.
- What is the point to allow resources issued by a certain RIR to be
used elsewhere in the world and not in the region where they were
originally issued by IANA ? If it was the case then we don't need RIRs
with their own pools and rules, just have a global pool which would
certainly be unfair to certain regions that have different different
needs and evolve in different speeds.
It is understandable certain specific usages like anycast or small
portions of IP space outside the region in order to support the
operations in the region, but not simply an organization come here,
estabilish an legal local company request IP addresses and go to use
them elsewhere in the world.
- Leasing is another absurd that I really fail to understand how people
consider it normal. Just think for a minute: when a organization request
IP space from the RIR it is for its own usage and for its customers
usages which it provides connectivity and don't have the possibility to
hold their own IP space. It is pretty obvious !
Does it make any sense to justify to the RIR: "I need this extra IP
space in order to lease them to other ASNs which according to the rules
of the their RIR, cannot request anymore". Just look how absurd this can
And works the same for organization who already have IP space issued. If
it is leasing part of it to some other organization then it is crystal
clear that part of those addresses which have been justified in the past
are not needed anymore by that organization and should be returned as
they don't justify for them anymore. It might sound 'cruel' to those who
are doing that but it is the obvious. Rules can't allow organizations to
create 'address estates' with something they don't own.
And by the way: when a LIR assigns IP addresses to their connectivity
customers this is NOT a lease but an administrative fee to cover costs
to keep all infrastructure necessary to have those IPs up and running,
including the same very administrative fee that is paid to the RIR for
the same proposes.
I invite those who still struggle to understand these points to make an
effort and not make absurd points like this look normal and acceptable.
Just a final note about transfer process which involves a payment to the
source organization in this case I don't see as an issue because at
least the receiving organization will have to justify the need to the
RIR, so at least community is ensured those transferred resources will
in fact be used by someone who really need and justify them. So if one
has space which is not use anymore and believe they will never be
necessary in the future just transfer them to another organization and
transfer policies will do what they were thought to do.
On 26/06/2021 03:29, Noah wrote:
> Hey Ronald,
> You are spot on.....
> I have always argued that every single IPv4 integer that numbers a NIC
> on some router/server on this continent, goes to have a profound
> socio-economic impact, whether its some unemployed AFRINIC youth who
> has figured that they can run a small ecommerce business off a local
> ecommerce platform or a Telecom/ISP that is doing what it takes to get
> every single AFRICAN connected to the Internet on the AFRICAN Continent.
> Folk got guts out here openly telling folks that we ought to turn
> intergers into a commodity worthy some 30USD.
> My question to AFRINIC, do your resource members justification for
> IPv4 needs, include that of running IPv4 Leasing?
> Does AFRINIC have IPv4 brokers as resource members?
> Because it seems to me that folk out here are arguing that IPv4
> integers themselves are meant to be some product sold at 30USD.
> My understanding was that the need for IPv4 was for the intergers to
> be used by the requester to number infrastructure for their
> networks/systems and their downstram customers/users so as to offer a
> wide range on services/products that Impact AFRICA's
> socio-economically and politically from, NREN, Higher Learning
> Institutions, Agriculture, ISP/Telecoms, Egovernment, FINTECH, SME's,
> Ecommerce (I know of unemployed youth leveraging the power of online
> platforms to forge a decent life and economically empower themselves
> through ecommorce, entertainment, influencers etc). The true digital
> transformation if you will.
> So I really need to understand what Paul is going on about to
> ascertain what I view as clear misunderstanding and misinterpretation
> of what AFRINIC is all about.
> PS: RFG ....What is your poison? .... The least I could do is, ship
> you a cold Vodka or The Walking John :-).
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:34 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
> <rfg at tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
> In message
> <17a3d21fad1.bd552ba1206303.7060355078460728919 at africaoncloud.net
> <mailto:17a3d21fad1.bd552ba1206303.7060355078460728919 at africaoncloud.net>>,
> Paul Wollner <paul.wollner at africaoncloud.net
> <mailto:paul.wollner at africaoncloud.net>> wrote:
> >Out-of-region use was extensively discussed
> >within the last decade, and it was a consensus that pre-soft
> landing space is
> >allowed for out-of-region use. Yet, I heard that AFRINIC seems to
> be using
> >bylaw 6.1 to manage other people's resource usage. This is not
> part of AFRINIC
> >policy and has, with good reason, never been approved by the
> This happens to be a special point of interest for me.
> Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reads as follows:
> 6.1) Subject to the other provisions of this Article,
> membership shall
> be open to:
> i) any Person who is geographically based within, and
> services in the African region, and who is engaged in
> the use
> of, or business of providing, open system protocol network
> services; or
> ii) any other Person who is approved by the Board or the
> There is no ambiguity here, and the matter is NOT up for debate.
> is a corporate entity and it is -legally obliged- to conform to
> its own
> It is most certainly the case that some persons and entities who are
> currently listed as "members" of AFRINIC simply do not qualify as such
> based on any reasonable reading of the above section of the Bylaws.
> If the membership wishes to *change* the Bylaws, then it may be
> free to
> do so, under Mauritius law. But as of this moment, the Bylaws
> simply ARE
> what the Bylaws are, and they are NOT ambiguous.
> Some parties currently listed as "members" of AFRINIC are *not*
> *any* "services in the African region". They are, instead
> profiteers and
> carpetbaggers who have effectively looted what they could from
> AFRINIC and
> then laughed all the way to the bank. (I prefer not to mention any
> but the handle ORG-FGI1-AFRINIC comes immediately to mind.)
> You can question whether or not AFRINIC should be allowing totally
> and totally unfettered use of, and transfers of, IP addres blocks
> AFRINIC has given out, but then if that was in fact the plan all
> then a reasonable person would necessarily have to stop and ask
> "Well, then, what was the point of establishing AFRINIC as a separate
> and independent RIR in the first place anyway?"
> If people were all just going to descend on AFRINIC, like
> vultures, grab
> whatever they could and then abscond with their booty to the RIPE
> or the ARIN region or the APNIC region or the LACNIC region, then
> we could
> all have saved a lot of time and bother by never even creating
> AFRINIC in
> the first place.
> P.S. I personally would be entirely happy if all of the five
> existing RIRs
> were folded into a single global entity. That would certain make
> it easier
> for me, i.e. if I only had to parse a single flavor of WHOIS
> records, instead
> of five different flavors, like I have to deal with now. But somehow I
> suspect that the various people who work for all five of these
> Internet Registries might hold a somewhat different view on the
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD