<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Courier" size="-1">Hi Saul,</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier" size="-1">This issue has already been raised
in Nairobi, and the community has expressed it's concern about
the depletion of resources before others (who are still
developing their networks) get the chance to get any v4 space.
Remember the food analogy...<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier" size="-1">There also a little inconsistency
in your statements. You say it's not always possible to go the
v6 route (arguable), and then you ask why we're saving v4 for
latecomers ?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier" size="-1">Cheers<br>
</font></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/06/2017 07:00, Saul Stein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:092901d2e8c9$bf4275c0$3dc76140$@enetworks.co.za">
<pre wrap="">Hi
While I agree that we should all be going the v6 route, it isn’t always
possible. If you have a legitimate need for the space then you should be
able to get it while it is there. 2 years is a long time in the future -
double AFRICNIC’s current planning phase and a single FTTx project could
take a /18. One project and you can't get address space.
You’d also need to state that excludes applications before the policy was
passed as organisations that have already received allocations would now
have to wait 2 years….
What are we stockpiling v4 space for?
Cheers
Saul
-----Original Message-----
From: Sami [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:s.aitalioulahcen@cnrst.ma">mailto:s.aitalioulahcen@cnrst.ma</a>]
Sent: 16 June 2017 11:43 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Spam]Re: IPv4 Soft Landing-bis Statement Post AFRINIC-26
+1
On 16/06/2017 06:11, Jackson Muthili wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The proposal IPv4 Soft Landing BIS only needs one more input to make it
perfect.
That input should come from the just withdrawn Soft Landing SD as follows:
====|
an organization that has received the maximum allowable prefix in each
phase may request for another round of allocation/assignment in the
same phase after a 24 calendar months waiting period.
|=====
With this addition it has my full support (also add the /24 minimum back).
Due to urgency of need of this proposal to cap abusers with negative
interests of our region depleting our pool and hence negating fair and
equitable distribution of this last block I request that co-chairs
immediately vary the process for quick approval of this proposal
(BIS-SD or whatever both parties will call it)
J
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Omo Oaiya <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net"><Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Community,
On 9 February 2016, we initiated a policy proposal to update the IPv4
Soft Landing policy (SL) adopted in 2011 and which followed the
Global IPv4 soft landing policy that granted the 102/8 to AFRINIC in
February 2011
The existing Soft landing policy defines how to fairly distribute the
102/8 and other remaining v4 space to support a smooth transition to
IPv6. It defines 2 phases (phase 1 and Phase 2) and keep a reserve
of /12 for unforeseen future. More detail at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/1829-afrinic-consolidated-pol">http://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/1829-afrinic-consolidated-pol</a>
icy-manual#SoftLanding
The IPv4 Softlanding-Bis (SL-Bis) proposal aimed to make the
distribution more equitable based on AFRINIC IPv4
allocation/assignment statistics. It stayed in the spirit of the Soft
Landing policy (Need based allocations, fair distribution, no limit
on request from members) with the following
changes:
- reduce the max allocation/assignment in phase 1 from /13 to /18
([latest version]
- change nothing in Phase 2
- remove the minimum allocation of /24 and empower staff to determine
the minimum as we go through the exhaustion and the transition to
IPv6
- cancel the unforeseen future reserve(to be used at BoD discretion)
and create a dedicated reserve for IPv6 deployment[ latest version] :
- allocation/assignment to root ops and African ccTLDs operating in
the region for dual stack DNS servers
- v4 space for new comers with IPv6 network for 464XLAT/ transition
mechanisms
More information on the SL-Bis proposal at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-propos">https://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-propos</a>
als/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis
On 12 February 2016, a policy proposal named “Soft Landing
Overhaul”(SL-overhaul) was submitted. Section 2.0 of the proposal
reads
======
2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
This proposal still maintains a block of space reserved for new
entrants, but beyond that, it allows for the natural depletion of
IPv4 through standard demand, and hence encourages the uptake of IPv6
in a more aggressive manner.
=====
More information on SL-overhaul at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposa">https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposa</a>
ls/1623-soft-landing-overhaul
The two proposals were presented at AFRINIC24 held in Gaborone (June
2016).
Despite the fact that many participants supported SL-Bis proposal,
the chairs declared that none of the 2 proposals got consensus.
During AFRINIC-25 held in Mauritius (November 2016), to avoid the
Gaborone scenario, the authors of SL-Bis offered to work together
with the authors of SL-overhaul to find a common ground about how to
update the SL policy despite the differences in the problem statements of
the two proposals.
SL-overhaul authors withdrew their proposal thereafter and the
consolidation attempts by the Co-chairs produced the following
document -https://goo.gl/AWCCWd
The Chairs called for volunteers to take on points from that document
and propose policy while SL-bis was still in the PDP track. As a
consequence,
Soft Landing SD (SL-SD) was proposed on 30th March 2017. Section 2.0
of the proposal reads:
=======
2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
This proposal tries to address these problems by:
- Reducing the maximum prefix in phase 1. We arrived at this figure
by looking at the average allocation prefix. We found the average to
be between
/17 and /16.
- Disallowing allocation to organisations who have been allocated
up to the maximum prefixes during each phase for certain duration.
- Adjusted the maximum prefix for phase 2, to bring it closer to
average allocation size.
=========
The proposal modifies section 5.4.4 of the CPM to the following:
==============
For any LIR or End User requesting IPv4 address space during the
Exhaustion
phases:
5.4.4.1 An organization may request additional IPv4 address space in
both Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, such an organisation's total
allocations/assignments must not exceed the maximum allowable prefix
of /16 for Exhaustion Phase 1 and /20 for Exhaustion Phase 2.
5.4.4.2 Notwithstanding 5.4.4.1, an organisation that has received
the maximum allowable prefix in each phase may request for another
round of allocation/assignment in the same phase (as per 5.4.4.1),
after 24 calendar months waiting period.
=====================
More information about SL-SD at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposa">https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposa</a>
ls/2089-soft-landing-sd
SL-BIS and SL-SD were presented at AFRINIC26 held in Nairobi (May
2017). As in Gaborone, the chairs declared no consensus for the 2
proposals despite the overwhelming support for SL-BIS. The SL-SD
team withdrew their proposal which only got support from author
present.. See withdrawal message at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006924.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006924.html</a>
Some discussions have occurred on the list after the AFRINIC26
meeting about consolidating Soft landing policy update around SL-bis,
etc…
In conclusion, if the chairs got the message from the community and
are ready to vary the PDP as per section 3.6 of the CPM, the authors
will happily work on submitting an update of SL-bis. Otherwise, the
authors consider that based on the timing of the exhaustion phases
and current PDP process, we have reached a juncture at which a
further update has diminished value. As such, we would find it more
productive to work separately on aspects of the Soft landing that do
not have time constraints and can still go through the normal PDP.
The authors thank you all for your contribution and support all along
the SL-bis journey.
Joe Kimaili (Ubuntunet Alliance) Alain Aina, Omo Oaiya (WACREN)
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Sami
GPG Key ID: 0x36d57440
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Sami
GPG Key ID: 0x36d57440
</pre>
</body>
</html>