<p>Oga Nii,<br>
On Jan 17, 2013 6:10 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" <<a href="mailto:quaynor@ghana.com">quaynor@ghana.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> So, pardon me if I missed the essence of this proposal <br>
><br>
Interesting this is coming in after over 50 mails from community and still counting.<br>
><br>
but here are some questions to work with. If it is late hit delete<br>
><br>
Definitely not a delete button ;-) I had earlier thought about this toobut decided not to raise it based on the fact you have mentioned; the ratio/size of IPs required is what make this unique.<br>
Perhaps a modification of the existing policy can be applicable.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
> The proposal was justified by<br>
><br>
> - Ipv6 adoption<br>
> - nat removal<br>
> - ratio 1:5 as criteria for allocation<br>
> - HEI is defined as end user<br>
><br>
><br>
> What I did not see is how existing policies impede HEI achieving this or how the proposal dramatically improves things for HEI<br>
><br>
> Current polices promote both ipv6 adoption and nat removal and have special programs and fees unique to HEI. Perhaps the new variable is the allocation based on campus population and ratio as opposed to network structure forecast<br>
><br>
> 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<br>
><br>
> Thus as much as I support the proposal I wonder if same may not be achievable in existing policy framework<br>
><br>
> Nii<br>
><br>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 20:29, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi All,<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> We look forward to your comments and further changes/modifications.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks<br>
>><br>
>> Andrew<br>
>><br>
>> Unique Identifier: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02<br>
>><br>
>> Draft Policy Name: Academic IPv4 Allocation<br>
>><br>
>> Policy Author(s): Andrew Alston <a href="mailto:aa@alstonnetworks.net">aa@alstonnetworks.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> Sunday Folayan <a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com.ng">sfolayan@skannet.com.ng</a><br>
>><br>
>> Date: January 16, 2013<br>
>><br>
>> Related Policies: None<br>
>><br>
>> Amends: None<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem<br>
>><br>
>> a) This proposal will simplify the allocation of address space to HEIs by detailing and simplifying the address justification criteria<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> d) This proposal encourages the adoption of IPv6 by making the rollout of IPv6 a criterion for qualification under this proposal.<br>
>><br>
>> 3) Proposal<br>
>><br>
>> Academic Institutions qualify for IP address space from AfriNIC based on the sum of the number of registered students and employees on their campus. <br>
>><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 Institution’s registration/accreditation<br>
>><br>
>> 3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered students<br>
>><br>
>> 3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.<br>
>><br>
>> 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)<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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).<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 4.1) Revision History (For all but the first draft):<br>
>><br>
>> 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. <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>><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><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<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><br>
><br>
</p>