<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think this very proposal actually gives me even more reason to oppose the implementation of the disputed clause.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the implementation of such a clause would result in what is proposed below, or anyone even THINKING about such a solution, that alone is enough reason to scrap the clause in my opinion </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>While the rest of the world goes native IPv6, what is proposed below would mean that Africa switches to tunneled IPv4. This creates MTU issues, it creates technical complexity, it creates overhead on already limited bandwidth pipes, it potentially creates processing issues in non-hardware backed routers, it limits the level of functionality available, it would force diverged routing topology for V4 and V6, and the list continues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I don’t even have words right now to say just how scary I find the below proposal………..<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> rpd-bounces@afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Arbogast Fabian<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:10 AM<br><b>To:</b> jblessing@llnw.com<br><b>Cc:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 ofAFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>this can be done with site-to-site VPN where on each end you have public IPs belonging to respective RIRs then over them you do VPN (site-to-site)<br> <br>you don't necessarily need your own block of IPs to do p2p btwn two points sitting on two different geographical areas.<br><br> <br> <br></span><em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'>Arbogast Fabian,</span></em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br></span><em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'>cell:+255-78-447-8387</span></em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br><br><br><br> <br>> Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 13:52:48 +0100<br>> From: jblessing@llnw.com<br>> CC: rpd@afrinic.net<br>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing<br>> <br>> On 06/05/2011 13:43, Arbogast Fabian wrote:<br>> > i mean not to allow our IP addresses to be assigned to any device<br>> > sitting outside africa.<br>> ><br>> <br>> So when you want a p2p link between Johannesburg and London or Dubai how <br>> would you number that link?<br>> <br>> J<br>> -- <br>> James Blessing<br>> +44 7989 039 476<br>> Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA<br>> Limelight Networks<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> rpd mailing list<br>> rpd@afrinic.net<br>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>