<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=utf-8"><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-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Nii,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Due to the nature of HEI’s, their applications are typically *<b>FAR</b>* larger than standard EU applications. This means that the process to get them approved is often delayed and highly complicated, this policy attempts to end that. The policy removes the subjectivity that currently applies in the application process and simply seeks to state up front things that all of us who have been involved in HEI’s already know, so they don’t have to be checked, rechecked and then left open to interpretation, leading to delays in weeks of getting space allocated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The policy acknowledges that HEI’s are fairly far removed from what you would typically see with commercial entities asking for EU space. I must point out, the differentiating factors of HEIs from commercial entities are also well acknowledged and documented all over the world in various guises, from preferential pricing to a greater willingness to peer with academia than with other commercial entities. Hence, I still believe that this policy is justified in order to streamline the process and deal with applications that would be extremely uncommon outside of the HEIs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><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"'> Nii Narku Quaynor [mailto:quaynor@ghana.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:48 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 Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Interesting. I am from HEI and would support proposals that enhance net infrastructure for HEIs<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So, pardon me if I missed the essence of this proposal but here are some questions to work with. If it is late hit delete<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The proposal was justified by<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Ipv6 adoption<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- nat removal<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- ratio 1:5 as criteria for allocation<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- HEI is defined as end user<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What I did not see is how existing policies impede HEI achieving this or how the proposal dramatically improves things for HEI<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Current polices promote both ipv6 adoption and nat removal and have special programs and fees <span class=apple-style-span>unique to HEI. Perhaps the new variable is the allocation based on campus population and ratio as opposed to network structure forecast</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Do we have a good feel that HEIs in membership prefer to be classified as end users or LIR? Have we argued how this policy will improve the lot of HEI networks or explored quantitatively how the policy works<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Thus as much as I support the proposal I wonder if same may not be achievable in existing policy framework<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Nii<br>On Jan 16, 2013, at 20:29, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sunday and I have looked at the comments coming back from the list, and would like to propose a second draft of our policy as seen below. While we realize that the debate between full time and part time students is probably still going to continue, for the purposes of this draft we have chosen to use Owen’s proposed formula until there is more clarity on community will on this one. Beyond that this draft attempts to address the issue of employees in addition to students, changes the ratio from 3 to 5 as seems to be the will of the membership body and adds a clause allowing for allocations larger than the default 1:5 ratio, providing there is justification provided, while at the same time NOT imposing any further justification requirements needed for the 1:5 default ratio.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We look forward to your comments and further changes/modifications.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Unique Identifier: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Draft Policy Name: Academic IPv4 Allocation<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Policy Author(s): Andrew Alston <a href="mailto:aa@alstonnetworks.net">aa@alstonnetworks.net</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> Sunday Folayan <a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com.ng">sfolayan@skannet.com.ng</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Date: January 16, 2013<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Related Policies: None<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Amends: None<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Given that the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Africa are growing, and that Internet access within these academic Institutions is critical to the educational experience of students, it is necessary to provide sufficient address space to these HEIs to allow them to function effectively. When we consider that such institutions are constantly upgrading their Infrastructure and bandwidth to support technologies which are severely limited in environments using Network Address Translation (NAT), we believe that it is important that HEIs desirous of public address space should have the ability to migrate away from NAT. Such migration will help promote technologies such as multicast and the convergence of voice and data networks, which will in turn drive down the costs within such institutions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>By promoting the elimination of NATs, this proposal will also assist HEIs in their migration to IPv6, and in fact, to qualify under this proposal, dual-stack and/or rollout of IPv6 at the qualifying institution is mandatory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> a) This proposal will simplify the allocation of address space to HEIs by detailing and simplifying the address justification criteria<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> b) This proposal recognizes HEIs as end users, and removes the confusion previously seen where arguments have occurred as to the status of the applying institution.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> c) This proposal helps to reduce the dependence of HEIs on NATs, and is in line with AfriNIC's own policy of not promoting the usage of such translation mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> d) This proposal encourages the adoption of IPv6 by making the rollout of IPv6 a criterion for qualification under this proposal.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3) Proposal<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on the sum of the number of registered students and employees on their campus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.1) To qualify for address space, Academic institutions will need to apply as end users and provide the following documentation:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> 3.1.1) Proof of Institution’s registration/accreditation<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> 3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered students<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> 3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.2) This policy applies a ratio to a head count of campus users, where the number of campus users is calculated using a formula of full time students + full time employees + (part time students * 0.5)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.3) 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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.4) 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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources at a ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user, where campus user is defined in 3.2). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.6) While 3.4 defines a minimum accepted ratio for which the justification is clearly defined in 3.1, applications based on a ratio as high as 10:1 shall be given due consideration and should be approved unless the justification for such increased ratio is believed by AfriNIC staff to be specious or fraudulent in nature.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.7) HEIs will be classified as End Users under this policy, on provision of a duly authorized letter from the institution management stating that address space allocated will not be used outside of the campus/academic environment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.8) HEIs qualifying under this proposal will qualify for the same academic discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the time of application.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3.9) Since any HEI that has a large base of registered students and full time staff, has to, by the very nature of their function, have equipment on campus, this policy dispenses for the need for a HEI to provide detailed proof of equipment and infrastructure.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>4.1) Revision History (For all but the first draft):<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Version 1 – Added 3.1.3 to include justification of employee count. Added a new point 3.2 and 3.4, meaning that sequential numbering changed, where the original 3.2 became 3.3, 3.4 became 3.5, 3.6 was a new point, meaning original 3.6 -> 3.8 became 3.7 -> 3.9. Added 3.2 to define the calculation of head count to which the address ratio calculation is applied. Modified 3.5 to change the ratio from 1:3 to 1:5 as per requests from the RPD list. Added 3.6 to allow for allocations larger than the de-facto 1:5 ratio upon submission of additional documentation, while maintaining the need for minimal justification if the ratio applied for did not exceed the 1:5 mark. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>_______________________________________________<br>rpd mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>