<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 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* 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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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'>Hi Seun/Owen,<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'>Ok, I can see the support for a 5:1 and I don’t object to this if the community is in agreement.<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'>With regards to the part time vs full time, I see both sides of this argument. I also see that calculating on FTE’s could be complicated and lead to exactly the type of complexity in an application we are attempting to avoid. That being said, I am concerned with a wholesale inclusion of part time students. Hence, If we use a 0.5 multipler on part time students, or some other multiplier to be suggested by the community, I’d also support that approach.<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'>With regards to students, yes, I agree that we could include the staff numbers into the count. This would mean a rewording that referred to “registered students and employees of the institution” or something along those lines.<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'>Thoughts?<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><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"'> Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> Andrew Alston<br><b>Cc:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPV4 Allocation Policy - Draft 1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Hey Andrew,<o:p></o:p></p><p>The ratio is fine, somehow I had read that part the other way round ;-) <br>Meanwhile I also agree with Owen's ratio proposal do maybe 1:5 is futuristic-ally realistic :-).<br>On the FTE, I don't agree with that, unless we don't want to face the reality on ground. Part time students are entitled to everything a full time is entitled to on campus as it relates to resources. I don't think we should look at access to the network infrastructure on a hourly basis as students can decide to access the network at any time. Infact most students handheld devices are up and running 24/7 (so long as they reside within campus they connect) So they need be included. Which is why i still think re-wording that section to read "registered students" will ensure all students cadre are covered. Come to think of it, will we refer php/some masters students as full timers? No....but they are registered students that may even require access than some other so called full time students<o:p></o:p></p><p><br>On a lighter note,I wonder why we don't really count staff as part of the user..for debate. Those numbers really count, especially if we are looking at it from the ratio level...also a staff residing in staff quarters with his/her kids will definately increase the number of users...unless we are saying staff quarters (which is running campus network) is not the same university???<o:p></o:p></p><p>Sent from Google Nexus<br>Skype: seun.ojedeji<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 15, 2013 8:24 PM, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com" target="_blank">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Seun,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on the number of registered full time students on their campus.<br>><br>This should be reworded as institution has lots of part time students. So I guess using"registered students" will be better. Btw this should not only include students,I think staff can also be quite a bunch?<br>> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What I would actually prefer to do here, is use the FTE standard, provided it, or some equivalent is accepted across the continent. Where FTE’s are considered “Full time equivalent”. The problem with doing this is that it leaves some ambiguity, since I am not sure what the formula is to calculate FTE’s and if FTE numbers necessarily available at institutions across the continent (As far as I know, in South Africa, FTE numbers are audited and reported on, I am not sure if this applies elsewhere, perhaps someone could comment?)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>><br>> 3.1) To qualify for address space, Academic institutions will need to apply as end users and provide the following documentation:<br>><br>> 3.1.1) Proof of University registration/accreditation<br>><br>> 3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered full time students<br>><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>See above, happy to make this registered students, though I think it may prove complicated to do that, the FTE method may be better, but I think it’s open for discussion. Perhaps we could get some comment on this issue from some of other academically involved people on the list? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p>> 3.2) In addition to the documentation specified in clause 3.1, institutions will need to provide details of planned/current IPv6 roll-outs, including committed time frames for the roll-out of IPv6.<br>><br>maybe plan and not details and it should be clear on what the plan would entail.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> 3.3) For the purposes of this policy, the roll-out of IPv6 can only be considered to be a true IPv6 roll-out, if IPv6 is extended to the edge of the network, beyond just the core/server infrastructure.<br>><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>....If The v6 PLAN<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I agree with this change, and am happy to reword with regards to “plan”.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> 3.4) Under the policy, an HEI shall qualify for IP addresses on the basis of a 1:3 student:address ratio, so as to cater for the wide spread and increasing use of portable devices<br>><o:p></o:p></p><p>guess you meant 3:1<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>No, I meant 1:3 student:address, as in, if you have 20 thousand students, you would get a /16 (20,000*3 rounded up to nearest bit aligned prefix). I will respond separately on the issue of the ratio when I respond to Owen’s email in a few minutes however.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p>It should be clear what infrastructure is refereed is it v6 or v4<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>On this point I don’t agree, since the idea is to eliminate the need to justify against infrastructure, but rather justify against student numbers and population count. The moment you introduce the whole infrastructure justification thing, you enter into a state of paralysis with AfriNIC as has been demonstrated with previous academic applications. AfriNIC has not deemed it acceptable up until now to accept the likes of network diagrams or switch port counts or anything else, they generally want invoices, arp tables and god knows what else, information which is often extremely difficult to obtain and supply considering that a large institution could be sitting with hundreds if not thousands of switches and devices, purchased over long periods of time and furthermore, when supplying AfriNIC with invoices etc, very often those things have to be redacted to remove pricing information that was supplied to the institution under NDA. (And trust me, I’ve sat redacting invoices for this purpose in the past, it’s a nightmare). Remove the infrastructure requirement, base it on the student count and this also allows for the institution in question to grow its own infrastructure with space that is dictated by head count, not what equipment they have already purchased.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>