<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Lee<br><br></div>We have deployed IPv6 as well and it works like a charm and we see increase in v6 traffic on net. I know my friend Samuel at Safaricom in Kenya have an operational IPv6 network with descent traffic on it as well and he recently shared an interesting paper at the AIS meeting about their experience and success. I also know of networks in other parts of Africa that have deployed IPv6 and continue too. So IPv6 is happening for both small, medium and large networks across the board. Just like v4, IPv6 still has some limitation for certain implementation and use cases like the one Andrew is referring too, but by large, most end users are less concerned with SRv6 or MPLS because they just need to connect to the internet and do their thing and this is very much happening through known implementations. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Noah<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:40 PM Lee Howard <<a href="mailto:lee.howard@retevia.net">lee.howard@retevia.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I want to make sure people don't read too much into your
statement. Clearly, IPv6 has been widely deployed and is in
production for hundreds of millions of people worldwide.</p>
<p>[more below]<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-cite-prefix">On 6/30/19 7:06 AM, Andrew Alston
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Jordi I think – getting back to the topic at
hand – the point here is simply that those who are saying
“just deploy v6” are taking an extremely naïve view. If we
want v6 adoption – it is time we as a community start to
acknowledge the fact that v6 – while it has to happen –
while it is critical that it happens – and while there are
no other options because well, v4 is dying and entirely
insufficient, does not detract from the fact that there are
still significant problems with v6.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Fact is – we’re 20+ years into v6 – and you and
I, I believe first met in Cairo at the Mena House Oberoi, 14
years ago – and there were discussions there about the
perspective of runout with your views contrasted to the
views of Tony Hain. My view is – looking back that far –
the community, and the IETF, has done a horrific job with v6
– and I blame the vendors, the ietf and the community alike
for the fact that so far in – as we get to crunch point – we
still have no feature parity to v4 – nowhere close.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I believe that many of the problems with v6
stem from the fact that – unlike v4 – which was created by a
very small group in room – v6 was the masses – all of whom
were trying to inject fixes for every problem they could
think of into the protocol – and the result was the fact
that it morphed and became problematic. Then we started
trying to see what we could do with it that was new and
fancy – before addressing the feature parity issues – and
this does create challenges.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Am I saying that anyone should halt on v6?
Hell no – I believe that anyone who isn’t yet figuring out
how to dual stack at minimum – and everywhere – is going to
be in a world of hurt soon – and is acting contrary to their
own interests. But – if we want adoption – we need to start
being willing to admit that v6 has issues – many many issues
– which have not been addressed and which people tend to
want to ignore.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">There is
almost no MPLS feature parity when using v6
</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not my expertise, but I know of people who have deployed all of
the above. I didn't write <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439" target="_blank">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439</a>
"Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks," but I signed
the paycheck of the guy who did. That was published more than four
years ago. I haven't kept up with gap resolution, but I believe
progress has been made on almost all of them.</p>
<p>Vendor issues are different, of course.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">You have
header size issues in V6 when using extensions that could
result in significant costs</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
Don't parse extension headers unless you expect them and know what
to do with them, i.e., not on Internet backbone. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">You have
some very interesting issues with security – particularly
with extension headers and how they are processed by most
firewalls today</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
Don't parse extensions headers (EH) unless you expect them and know
what to do with them. I agree that the header format is inefficient:
L4 firewalls have to read a variable-length header to find the upper
layer header. Some security policies simply discard any packets with
EH other than fragmentation headers.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">You have
path mtu issues – and how kernels are dealing with them
and the ability to create some pretty serious issues with
some well targeted packets in various operating systems.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
Can you be more specific? Path MTU is problematic when you have
tunnels that change the effective MTU size along the path, and there
are some oddball cases of very long (1600+ byte) UDP packets, but a
moderate MTU on servers cures most ills.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">You have
major issues with parity in many of the firewalls when it
comes to v6</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
Do you mean processing in hardware vs software, or the kind of
inspection available? The first problem is generally that you have
an old firewall that's probably due to retire. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">You have
DPI issues with v6 – which while I don’t like DPI because
of the consequences to net neutrality – create problems –
are still a constraint on the market – particularly in
Africa</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
What issues? Is this back to extension headers being hard to parse?
With TLS1.3 and QUIC (HTTP/3) DPI will be limited to metadata
anyway. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So – Let’s accept that we need v6 – we have to
do it – but lets also stop saying – v6 is perfect and
everyone can just turn it on – and I’m not saying you are
saying that at all – but I see enough of that on this list
to realize that people often don’t truly understand the
challenges – and the way to fix those challenges – is
through acknowledgement, dialog and conversation, not
sticking our heads in the sand</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think I can be called naive. I also don't think anyone
has said the words you say people need to stop saying. If you want
protocol changes, that conversation should happen at the IETF,
which I understand you're doing with SRv6.<br>
</p>
<p>Most importantly, I don't want people to take the gist of your
message and think IPv6 is not ready for deployment. You may have
specific issues in your network - I certainly can't say you don't
- but large and small network operators around the world have
managed to deploy IPv6 already. <br>
</p>
<p>Hardware and vendor challenges exist in IPv4, too, and for many
network operators, once they're over the initial hurdle of
thinking about IPv6, the network becomes simpler in IPv6 than in
IPv4.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Lee<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Andrew<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-KE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
<a class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"><rpd@afrinic.net></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, 30 June 2019 13:46<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR
policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Hi Andrew,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Good summary in the article. Not saying that I
disagree with you, just my view according to the last call
just passed the 6man segment routing header document.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">El 29/6/19 16:03, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">Jordi,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">Just
a note on SRv6 – yes – the IETF did certain things with SRv6
recently – but the debate is far from over – because SRv6 as
defined by the original SR draft has major problems – and
there are at least two more RFC’s coming – interestingly
enough they do things very differently.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/srv6-why-we-want-andrew-alston/" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/srv6-why-we-want-andrew-alston/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">That
lists 4 of the current drafts – another one I’m expecting
out in the next few days – edits are done for initial
submission so just waiting for publication.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES">Andrew<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES">JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, 29 June 2019 at 14:59<br>
<b>To: </b>Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>,
Nasir Faruk <<a href="mailto:nasirfaruk@gmail.com" target="_blank">nasirfaruk@gmail.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>"
<<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Hi Andrew,</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Some responses below,
in-line.</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES">Regards,</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES">Jordi</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES">@jordipalet</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">El 29/6/19 12:55, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">So,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">There
are a few things here that we also need to consider.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Let’s
start with the mass IPv6 deployment. To be frank, deploying
IPv6 to the edge to the customers – is only one part of it.
There are other fairly major stumbling blocks – in
particular – V6 in an MPLS environment right now is still a
bit of a mess – LDPv6 was basically still born – and in both
the cases of Cisco and Juniper, you currently cannot a.) Do
V6 Martini b.) V6 L3VPN still has huge ties back to V4 (why,
heaven only knows) c.) There is massive inconsistently about
the forward movement of V6 in various domains – to give you
an idea – Cisco on IOS-XE does not implement SR-MPLS TLV’s
in IS-IS at current, neither does Huawei – and there is very
little clarification on if they are going to – or if they
are going to chase the SRv6 train – and in the matter case –
where we end up with SRv6 is still a mystery – because there
are two very divided schools of thought on SRv6 (and it
concerns header overhead on packets) . So – this whole
“simply mass deploy v6” argument – is actually a fair bit
more complex for many people than many would like you to
believe.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">In general, I think I
agree, and possibly the path forward will be SRv6, which
possibly will take around 1 year to be generally available
in equipment. IETF just passed it, so it is up to vendors to
decide in what hardware will be supported. Several of them
already have betas running and even some big deployment.</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">However, if you have
“some” business customers, possibly you want to keep
dual-stack in most of your core network. I’m referring to
the “big customers”, that have their own IPv4 PI (maybe PA,
but because the scarcity, and because the need to have IPv6
PI if they are multihomed, I think they should also have
IPv4 PA) and need transit in dual-stack, because they are
having some “dual-stack” services in their own networks.
This will decrease with the increase of Cloud Services, of
course.</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Business customers that
don’t need to “host” in their own network services, can be
very well served with 464XLAT, the same as residential ones.
This may be also approached with SD-WAN solutions and
combinations of both.</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Yes
– it can be done – but its not the simple put some addresses
on there and let it run that people make out. Not to
mention the transition mechanisms to do V6 -> V4
translation are to be blunt, a mess, there are what, 20+ of
them? Again – it can be done, but it aint exactly quick and
easy – and this is my major problem with this whole argument
of “just use v6”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Forget about all them,
IPv6-only with IPv4-as-a-Serive is the only realistic
approach. 464XLAT is the way, especially if you also have
cellular network and don’t want to get 2 transitions
mechanisms (for example 464XLAT and MAP-T/E or lw4o6).</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Reference: RFC8585 and
draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment (last-call ended 2 days
ago, so soon also an RFC).</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Secondly,
regards to the comments about the bylaws and IP space – let
me be clear – no one owns an integer – IP addresses are not
assets. When you buy space, or sell space, you are not
selling the space, you are charging someone for the process
of transferring your right to use said numbers from you to
them. Even then, I would argue that IP space and the usage
thereof, is built on a trust based system. There is no
legislation anywhere that I know of that allows anyone to
lay claim to an integer – and if I’m wrong here, please,
correct me, because as far as I know, there simply isn’t any
case law on this (anywhere)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">As
such, I don’t think we can bring arguments about assets into
the IP space debate in the context of the bylaws. What you
get as a member of an RIR – and what you are paying for – is
a book keeping entry – to say “We believe that you have the
right to use this number and we’re telling the world we
think it should be you using it”, you are NOT paying for IP
space, you are NOT paying to have sole claim to that IP
space – you are paying for a journal entry – nothing more.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="ES">Fully agree here!</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Andrew<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><b><span lang="ES">From:</span></b><span lang="ES"> Nasir Faruk
<<a href="mailto:nasirfaruk@gmail.com" target="_blank">nasirfaruk@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, 29 June 2019 12:30<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Hello Lee,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Thanks for the well thought document. It has
given considerable numbers needed to support this
argument. I think one concern of Noah not addressed on
the paper was the statistics of estimated IP address
that may flow to AFRINIC when the policy take up. This
is a number that would be somehow difficult to provide
because it depends on the demand and supply chain.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES">@Noah,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES">It is great the fact that you have admitted
from Lee’s submission that Africa would need address
space most. However, I can see that your stand is
basically revolving around option A, which I called
massive IPv6 deployment.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES">Now, do you honestly think in Africa, the IPv6
deployment will be at the advanced stage before AFRINIC
runs out of IPv4 spaces? What is your confidence level,
give me some numbers!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES"> Then supporting one-direction transfers to
only Afrinic to me would not be an option if other RIRs
constrained to bi-directional flows. I dont think its
wise to think other regions would change their policies
to agree in one-direction transfers to Afrinic. Why
would they do such?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES">Best Regards.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES">Faruk<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:70.8pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<pre style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="ES">..............................................................................................</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue" lang="ES">............</span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:106.8pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="ES"> </span></i><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<pre style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" lang="ES"> </span><span lang="ES"><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:59 AM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals -
AFRINIC needs<br>
this policy now! (Ronald F. Guilmette)<br>
2. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals -
AFRINIC needs<br>
this policy now! (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)<br>
3. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals -
AFRINIC needs<br>
this policy now! (Ronald F. Guilmette)<br>
4. Re: inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals -
AFRINIC needs<br>
this policy now! (Owen DeLong)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:09:16 -0700<br>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <<a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a>><br>
To: RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC<br>
needs this policy now!<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:80104.1561759756@segfault.tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">80104.1561759756@segfault.tristatelogic.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Ladies and gentlemen,<br>
<br>
I must begin by saying that I have two apologies to
make to you all.<br>
<br>
The first, which I will need to post at a later time,
is for my prior bad<br>
behavior and unfairly imflamitory and prejuducial
comments made on this<br>
list some several years ago now. I was utterly wrong
in my comments<br>
and assumptions on that occasion, and have been
meaning to come here and<br>
post a lengthy apology every since... a task that, for
one reason or<br>
another, has gotten put in the back burner all this
time.<br>
<br>
I don't even have time to go into my past mistakes or
the reasons for them<br>
just now, so that will have to wait, and I will post a
more elaborate and<br>
detailed apology for my past rude comments, hopefully
in the very near<br>
future. (Perhaps nobody even remembers or cares
anymore what I bad<br>
things I said here long ago, especially given what
seems to have been<br>
some dramatically woser behavior here recently. But
it is a matter of<br>
honor and I need to set the record straight and
apologize properly,<br>
but with an explanation.)<br>
<br>
My second apology is for coming in late to this
discussion about the<br>
pending Inter-RIR policy proposal(s). I am only now
becoming aware of<br>
this and I confess that I haven't had time to study or
even think about<br>
either the proposal or its implications or the stated
postions of various<br>
members on the proposal(s). Nontheless, I feel
compelled to interject<br>
myself just for the purpose of asking a few very naive
questions...<br>
<br>
My starting point is Mr. Noah's recent posting on this
topic...<br>
<br>
In message <<a href="mailto:CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6%2BShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju%2BvQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6+ShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju+vQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>So Jordi,<br>
><br>
>I still oppose this policy with strongest terms
possible. I still believe<br>
>IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when
holders of Idle space who are<br>
>yet to put them to good use as was
allocated/assigned will trade them for<br>
>some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC.
What we need is a policy<br>
>that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred
out of the region because<br>
>of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage
more space coming into<br>
>the region.<br>
<br>
For whatever it is worth, I personally am totally torn
on this issue. On<br>
the one hand, I would like to support my friend Jordi,
and I do, certainly,<br>
with respect to his anti-hijacking proposal, but
perhaps not in the<br>
case of Inter-RIR transfers. Also, as a longtime
fighter against spam<br>
on the Internet, it is an has been my belief that if
all IPv4 space were<br>
transfered, tomorrow, to whomever was the highest
bidder, without any<br>
regard for any other consideration (e.g. geography)
then this alone would<br>
put a major and perhaps crippling dent in the practice
of so-called<br>
"snowshoe" spamming... a practice that requires a LOT
of very cheap IPv4<br>
address space.<br>
<br>
That all having been said, I am also quite sympathetic
to the postion<br>
elaborated by Mr. Noah, and I could even be easily
induced to begin<br>
chanting "Afrinic for Africans!" (And I say this even
though I myself<br>
am not an African, either by residence or birth.)<br>
<br>
At the formation, Afrinic was endowed with a great
deal of IPv4 address<br>
space, and I believe that it was everyone's
understanding, at that time,<br>
that all these resources would be used for the good of
Africans. Much<br>
has transpired since that time, the Internet itself
has changed dramatically,<br>
and an open market for IPv4 address space has now
evolved. But despite<br>
all that, it can be, and perhaps should be argued that
the fundamental<br>
principal should still survive, and that Afrinic space
should be used to<br>
the benefit of Africans, and not just as an object of
trade, i.e. to derive<br>
a one-time cash transfer to current or historical
holders of these resources.<br>
<br>
But I didn't come here to make speeches.<br>
<br>
I said above that I would have a few naive questions,
and I do. Now I<br>
finally come to those. Mostly my questions derive
from the fundamental<br>
charter of Afrinic, which is to say its bylaws:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://afrinic.net/bylaws" target="_blank">
https://afrinic.net/bylaws</a><br>
<br>
Here are my two questions:<br>
<br>
*) Section 3.2 of the Bylaws reads as follows:<br>
<br>
3.2 The income and the capital of the Company
shall be applied<br>
solely towards the promotion of the objects of
the Company; and<br>
no part of the income or capital shall be paid
or transferred,<br>
directly or indirectly, to the members, whether
by way of dividend,<br>
capital distribution or bonus or otherwise.<br>
<br>
I wonder if anyone has considered, or reconsidered
the implications,<br>
legal and otherwise, of this (historical?) section
of the bylaws,<br>
particularly now that IPv4 address blocks may be,
and quite certainly<br>
are being treated, by major accounting firms, as
part of the capital<br>
assets of the various companies, worldwide, i.e.
all those that<br>
currently buy, sell, trade, and "own" them.<br>
<br>
That's my question. Does Section 3.2 of the Bylaws
prohibit Afrinic<br>
from "transferring" IP address blocks to any party
AT ALL? (Remember,<br>
I did warn you all above that my questions would be
naive!)<br>
<br>
*) Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reds as follows:<br>
<br>
6.1 Membership shall be open to:<br>
<br>
(i) any Person who is geographically based
within, and providing<br>
services in the African region, and who is
engaged in the use of,<br>
or business of providing, open system protocol
network services; or<br>
<br>
(ii) any other Person who is approved by the
Board or the members.<br>
<br>
I must and do apologize for my abundant ignorance,
but I really am at<br>
a loss to understand the implications, if any, of
the above quoted<br>
section of the Bylaws, particularly with respect to
IP address<br>
resources.<br>
<br>
If anyone would be so kind as to clarify for me
whether or not Section<br>
6.1 of the Bylaws have any specific implications
with respect to IP<br>
address resources, I sure would appreciate it.<br>
<br>
Those are the only two questions I have for now. I
look forward to being<br>
enlightened regarding the above two points.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:24:53 +0200<br>
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
To: RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC<br>
needs this policy now!<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D@consulintel.es" target="_blank">47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D@consulintel.es</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
<br>
Hi Ronald,<br>
<br>
I think the misconception here is to believe that we
are "actually" talking about the addresses as a
"transferable" object.<br>
<br>
By definition, the addresses aren't from the ISP that
gets them.<br>
<br>
What we are transferring is the right to get the
addresses registered for the exclusive use of the
resource-holder, so that organization can use those
addresses (for its own network or customers).<br>
<br>
In fact, we could say that the RIRs are also NOT the
owners of the addresses, just the responsible of the
registration services and distribution of the "rights
to use them" for the community.<br>
<br>
I think that may clarify your points?<br>
<br>
And by the way, if you were right, then I'm sure we
will have a problem in *every* RIR with all the
transfer policies, and I guess sufficient lawyers have
already looked into that!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
?El 29/6/19 0:15, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <<a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a>>
escribi?:<br>
<br>
Ladies and gentlemen,<br>
<br>
I must begin by saying that I have two apologies
to make to you all.<br>
<br>
The first, which I will need to post at a later
time, is for my prior bad<br>
behavior and unfairly imflamitory and prejuducial
comments made on this<br>
list some several years ago now. I was utterly
wrong in my comments<br>
and assumptions on that occasion, and have been
meaning to come here and<br>
post a lengthy apology every since... a task that,
for one reason or<br>
another, has gotten put in the back burner all
this time.<br>
<br>
I don't even have time to go into my past mistakes
or the reasons for them<br>
just now, so that will have to wait, and I will
post a more elaborate and<br>
detailed apology for my past rude comments,
hopefully in the very near<br>
future. (Perhaps nobody even remembers or cares
anymore what I bad<br>
things I said here long ago, especially given what
seems to have been<br>
some dramatically woser behavior here recently.
But it is a matter of<br>
honor and I need to set the record straight and
apologize properly,<br>
but with an explanation.)<br>
<br>
My second apology is for coming in late to this
discussion about the<br>
pending Inter-RIR policy proposal(s). I am only
now becoming aware of<br>
this and I confess that I haven't had time to
study or even think about<br>
either the proposal or its implications or the
stated postions of various<br>
members on the proposal(s). Nontheless, I feel
compelled to interject<br>
myself just for the purpose of asking a few very
naive questions...<br>
<br>
My starting point is Mr. Noah's recent posting on
this topic...<br>
<br>
In message <<a href="mailto:CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6%2BShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju%2BvQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6+ShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju+vQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>So Jordi,<br>
><br>
>I still oppose this policy with strongest
terms possible. I still believe<br>
>IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when
holders of Idle space who are<br>
>yet to put them to good use as was
allocated/assigned will trade them for<br>
>some dollars rather than return them to
AfriNIC. What we need is a policy<br>
>that would discourage IPv4 from being
transferred out of the region because<br>
>of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather
encourage more space coming into<br>
>the region.<br>
<br>
For whatever it is worth, I personally am totally
torn on this issue. On<br>
the one hand, I would like to support my friend
Jordi, and I do, certainly,<br>
with respect to his anti-hijacking proposal, but
perhaps not in the<br>
case of Inter-RIR transfers. Also, as a longtime
fighter against spam<br>
on the Internet, it is an has been my belief that
if all IPv4 space were<br>
transfered, tomorrow, to whomever was the highest
bidder, without any<br>
regard for any other consideration (e.g.
geography) then this alone would<br>
put a major and perhaps crippling dent in the
practice of so-called<br>
"snowshoe" spamming... a practice that requires a
LOT of very cheap IPv4<br>
address space.<br>
<br>
That all having been said, I am also quite
sympathetic to the postion<br>
elaborated by Mr. Noah, and I could even be easily
induced to begin<br>
chanting "Afrinic for Africans!" (And I say this
even though I myself<br>
am not an African, either by residence or birth.)<br>
<br>
At the formation, Afrinic was endowed with a great
deal of IPv4 address<br>
space, and I believe that it was everyone's
understanding, at that time,<br>
that all these resources would be used for the
good of Africans. Much<br>
has transpired since that time, the Internet
itself has changed dramatically,<br>
and an open market for IPv4 address space has now
evolved. But despite<br>
all that, it can be, and perhaps should be argued
that the fundamental<br>
principal should still survive, and that Afrinic
space should be used to<br>
the benefit of Africans, and not just as an object
of trade, i.e. to derive<br>
a one-time cash transfer to current or historical
holders of these resources.<br>
<br>
But I didn't come here to make speeches.<br>
<br>
I said above that I would have a few naive
questions, and I do. Now I<br>
finally come to those. Mostly my questions derive
from the fundamental<br>
charter of Afrinic, which is to say its bylaws:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://afrinic.net/bylaws" target="_blank">
https://afrinic.net/bylaws</a><br>
<br>
Here are my two questions:<br>
<br>
*) Section 3.2 of the Bylaws reads as follows:<br>
<br>
3.2 The income and the capital of the
Company shall be applied<br>
solely towards the promotion of the objects
of the Company; and<br>
no part of the income or capital shall be
paid or transferred,<br>
directly or indirectly, to the members,
whether by way of dividend,<br>
capital distribution or bonus or otherwise.<br>
<br>
I wonder if anyone has considered, or
reconsidered the implications,<br>
legal and otherwise, of this (historical?)
section of the bylaws,<br>
particularly now that IPv4 address blocks may
be, and quite certainly<br>
are being treated, by major accounting firms,
as part of the capital<br>
assets of the various companies, worldwide,
i.e. all those that<br>
currently buy, sell, trade, and "own" them.<br>
<br>
That's my question. Does Section 3.2 of the
Bylaws prohibit Afrinic<br>
from "transferring" IP address blocks to any
party AT ALL? (Remember,<br>
I did warn you all above that my questions
would be naive!)<br>
<br>
*) Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reds as follows:<br>
<br>
6.1 Membership shall be open to:<br>
<br>
(i) any Person who is geographically based
within, and providing<br>
services in the African region, and who is
engaged in the use of,<br>
or business of providing, open system
protocol network services; or<br>
<br>
(ii) any other Person who is approved by the
Board or the members.<br>
<br>
I must and do apologize for my abundant
ignorance, but I really am at<br>
a loss to understand the implications, if any,
of the above quoted<br>
section of the Bylaws, particularly with
respect to IP address<br>
resources.<br>
<br>
If anyone would be so kind as to clarify for me
whether or not Section<br>
6.1 of the Bylaws have any specific
implications with respect to IP<br>
address resources, I sure would appreciate it.<br>
<br>
Those are the only two questions I have for now.
I look forward to being<br>
enlightened regarding the above two points.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may
be privileged or confidential. The information is
intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information, even if partially,
including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached
files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a
criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
sender to inform about this communication and delete
it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:58:55 -0700<br>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <<a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a>><br>
Cc: RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC<br>
needs this policy now!<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:80420.1561762735@segfault.tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">80420.1561762735@segfault.tristatelogic.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
In message <<a href="mailto:47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D@consulintel.es" target="_blank">47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D@consulintel.es</a>>,
<br>
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>I think that may clarify your points?<br>
<br>
Not really. But thanks for trying.<br>
<br>
I raised two points, one of them arguably silly, and
the other one<br>
arguably less so.<br>
<br>
My first point was that the plain language of Section
3.2 of the Bylaws<br>
could be construed to disable Afrinic's ablity to
"transfer" any kind of<br>
"asset" to any party. And if "asset" were, in this
context, construed<br>
broadly, then that would result in the arguably
remarkable outcome that<br>
Afrinic could not "transfer" any IP address resources
to any party.<br>
<br>
Words have meaning, and not just to lawyers, but also
to statesmen and<br>
to those debating policy decisions. So my hope is
that Section 3.2 of<br>
the Bylaws may at some point be formally clarified so
as to remove any<br>
ambiguity.<br>
<br>
My second point was about Section 6.1 of the Bylaws
which, on the face<br>
of it, contains a geographically-limited
residence/service requirement.<br>
<br>
I want to know if that Section still has any current
meaning, and if so,<br>
what that meaning is.<br>
<br>
I do not assme that just because it is written in the
Bylaws that this<br>
section has any actual current operative meaning. It
may perhaps not.<br>
I am just asking the question. (In the fundamental
Constitution, as<br>
amended, of my own home nation, there appear the words
"A well regulated<br>
Militia...", however over time, that specific phrase
has been adjudicated<br>
to have essentially no meaning whatsoever, and thus,
no practical<br>
implications whatsoever. It may perhaps be likewise
for Section 6.1<br>
of the Afrinic Bylaws.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:58:03 -0700<br>
From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
To: Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>><br>
Cc: RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy
proposals - AFRINIC<br>
needs this policy now!<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:030F0F9B-29C0-4DF2-9147-94E1B2072385@delong.com" target="_blank">030F0F9B-29C0-4DF2-9147-94E1B2072385@delong.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:46 , Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:47 PM Andrew Alston
<<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
> Yes Noah, you are right, people don?t play with
money.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ooh yes and in the face of some $ and idle space,
the idle space will go in exchange for some $ and this
is simple economics. Space is obtained for one reason.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> And quite frankly ? I?d rather stick to this
continent ? rather than being forced to take space in
an alternative region with another RIR because I?m
going to have to buy in space one of these days ? and
guess what ? the space in Africa ? at the rates we?re
using it ? doesn?t exist ? it does however exist
outside. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Then we don't need reciprocal but rather one
direction (into Africa). By the way, do we honestly
believe that all allocated/assigned space within
Africa has been put to good use? Because save for
ISP's and content folks who assign space on a daily
basis to enterprise customers, most of the other
AfriNIC resource members are heavily using NAT with
half of the space being under utilized. That space
will flow out quick if there is a market for it.<br>
<br>
Actually, as it stands in most of the other RIRs, you
do need reciprocal because if your policy is
non-reciprocal, their policies won?t allow the space
to flow into your region.<br>
<br>
This isn?t about trying to exploit addresses from
Africa, it?s about the concept of fairness. Even
China?s NIR eventually recognized that the one-way
policy was preventing them from obtaining resources
and switched to a bidirectional transfer policy. Since
then, they remain a net importer of addresses.<br>
<br>
> So you can force guys like myself to go buy it
through a ripe membership, or you can let me bring the
space onto the continent.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I would not say force but I would rather
encourage you who is a member of both AfriNIC and RIPE
(available space), to actually consider getting some
from RIPE for some use in Africa.
<br>
<br>
Why would you want him exporting money to RIPE rather
than paying fees to AfriNIC for the same space?<br>
<br>
If you have the transfer policy, he gets the space
from a RIPE member and brings it into AfriNIC for
administration and pays fees to AfriNIC.<br>
If you don?t have a transfer policy, he gets the space
from RIPE, keeps his space in RIPE and all his fees go
too RIPE.<br>
<br>
What am I missing, Noah?<br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Andrew<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>>
<br>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 16:30<br>
> To: Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>><br>
> Cc: Boubakar Barry <<a href="mailto:boubakarbarry@gmail.com" target="_blank">boubakarbarry@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:boubakarbarry@gmail.com" target="_blank">boubakarbarry@gmail.com</a>>>;
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>>>;
RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR
policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:17 PM Andrew Alston
<<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Are you not asking for the identical thing?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> You have absolutely zero empirical data about how
much space will supposedly flow off the continent ?
and I strongly dispute that it will ? because I don?t
believe there is enough of it on the continent as it
is to even serve current needs.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We?re being asked to refuse support for as policy
based on fear mongering that has no evidence to
support said fears<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> There is historical evidence to show that other
resources (non-INR) have left the continent to the
benefit of other regions but Africa. Show them the $$$
and they will dance.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I had a very interesting discussion with one of
the IPv$ brokers and and he surely cant wait to trade
some of the space in our region. I will not go into
the details of that discussion but it was enough for
me to personally stay firm to my opposition of any
policy that would open room for resources meant to be
used in our region being traded fast due to economic
reasons beyond the real purpose they were meant for
which is to help build the African Internet
Infrastructure.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> You think its fear mongering, but I can assure
you that money is money and people dont play around
when it comes to money.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Noah<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Andrew<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Boubakar Barry <<a href="mailto:boubakarbarry@gmail.com" target="_blank">boubakarbarry@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:boubakarbarry@gmail.com" target="_blank">boubakarbarry@gmail.com</a>>>
<br>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 16:01<br>
> To: Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>><br>
> Cc: Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>>;
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>>>;
RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR
policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Alston
<<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> You?re asking for the impossible ? because to get
that you?d need to go to all the brokers (I assume)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> So, we jump into the dark, with no parachute
(data would have helped somehow), all eyes closed?
Keeping them open in these circumstances won't help
anyway.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Boubakar<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>>
<br>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 14:17<br>
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>>><br>
> Cc: RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR
policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> So Jordi,<br>
> <br>
> I still oppose this policy with strongest terms
possible. I still believe IPv4 space will leave our
region so fast when holders of Idle space who are yet
to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will
trade them for some dollars rather than return them to
AfriNIC. What we need is a policy that would
discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the
region because of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather
encourage more space coming into the region.<br>
> <br>
> We already have a transfer policy that can
facilitate internal transfers withing our region and I
am keen of getting a report from AfriNIC on how this
is going.<br>
> <br>
> @Jordi, please also share some statistical
numbers of available IPv4 space that would actually
come into our region so that we can work with figures
rather than assumptions.<br>
> <br>
> Noah<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:01 PM JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi again Sylvain,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I?m very thankful for your inputs!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We need to make sure that others also
participate!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> See below in-line.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> Jordi<br>
> <br>
> @jordipalet<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El 21/6/19 23:15, "Sylvain BAYA" <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>>>
escribi?:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> Le vendredi 21 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>
a ?crit :<br>
> <br>
> Hi Sylvain,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I want to thank you, I guess we won a ?strong?
contributor to policy discussions! (I recall your name
from previous discussions, but you?re now more active,
which is what I wish from every one).
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> :-D ...please don't expose me too much Jordi ;-)<br>
> <br>
> I'm just trying to do my best...i'm not any kind
of expert :'-(<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Now I realized that you were not on-site, pity!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> See below, in-line.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Saludos,<br>
> <br>
> Jordi<br>
> <br>
> @jordipalet<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El 20/6/19 22:37, "Sylvain BAYA" <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>>>
escribi?:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> Please see, inline, below...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>
a ?crit :<br>
> <br>
> Hi Sylvain,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Sorry the email was sent before I finished it ?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Responding below, in-line.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> Jordi<br>
> <br>
> @jordipalet<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El 20/6/19 15:05, "Sylvain BAYA" <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>>>
escribi?:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>
a ?crit :<br>
> <br>
> As said, this text is redundant (see specific
text below my signature), but I don't mind to have
explicit text if this facilitate the community to
reach consensus.<br>
> <br>
> Here is my proposal, again, please comment about
this ASAP, so we can submit a new version already,
instead of waiting to be closer to the next meeting.
This way we can ensure that we get on time the staff
impact analysis, in case something else need to be
amended.<br>
> <br>
> "The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically
suspended in case the balance between IPv4 out-going
and in-coming addresses becomes cero."
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Jordi,<br>
> <br>
> ...typos on ?zero? ?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Yeah ? my spelling checker often confuses English
and Spanish!<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Anyway, here is a better version, because this
balance is actually ?cero? at the start of the
implementation, so the text may be misleading, we need
to define .
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Alright !<br>
> <br>
> I like the new visage of this policy proposal
because i really appreciate the way you are leading
the discussions around it.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Believe me, that I always try to heard everybody
position and accommodate as much as possible, my own
thinking/knowledge and the text to that (or convincing
other if I believe they have a wrong vision). This is
the way to reach consensus.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Go ahead on this way ! i declare my support for
such an approach, because i'm personaly sharing a
similar approach.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hopefully other participants will also share it.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> While contributing to this thread, what i want is
to be sure that this policy proposal could be really
beneficial to AFRINIC region|community.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Same as me, again, the right thing to do.<br>
> <br>
> ?The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled
once AFRINIC enter into Exhaustion Phase 2 (<a href="http://5.4.3.2" target="_blank">5.4.3.2</a>
<<a href="http://5.4.3.2/" target="_blank">http://5.4.3.2/</a>>). The
Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically suspended in
case the number of out-going IPv4 addresses exceeds
the in-coming ones by six consecutive months.?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> This version is a good starting point. Thanks.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I understand it like this :<br>
> <br>
> * This Policy Validity Starting Point :
Exhaustion Phase 2<br>
> <br>
> * Initial point : balance of zero (nothing
in|out)<br>
> <br>
> * First auto-stop point : when the in/out balance
becomes down<br>
> <br>
> ..* After 06 consecutive months {seems to be not
interesting for me}<br>
> <br>
> ..* Even 02 consecutive months is not really
interesting, because we miss an #x amount (or %) of
resource (IPv4) limit to not reach at any time
(without any mention of #y consecutive months) to
reduce an unwilling risk.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> This policy shall be able, maybe, to stop a
transaction (in course) which could conduct us out of
a specific low acceptable in/out balance. So think
about it again please.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> This is not possible, I believe, unless someone
discovers a ?magic way to write it down? (which I
can?t see now). Anyway, I?m still trying to think
something before ending this email ?
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...quite difficult for sure :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It's simply confirming us that to reach the
*goal* of this (and other) policy proposal, we need to
think deeply on details. Other meaning : we need more
active volunteers|participants engaged with sincere
contributions.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> *EXACTLY!* Meetings time is precious and we
aren?t allowed to modify the text of the proposals
on-site, we need inputs way ahead!<br>
> <br>
> I?ve not personally been involved in transfers,
but I understand the process and transfers don?t
happen ?in the second?. There are documents to review,
justification to be reviewed by the two RIRs,
contracts to be signed, payments to be done (via an
escrow), etc. It is a matter of several days or weeks.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Thanks for these clarifications.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It may happen that in the middle of a month,
several ?negotiations? for transfers are running, and
some of them in one or the other direction may reach
or not in time for the end of that month. That?s why
I?m suggesting a number of months.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...to my knowledge, to better text this situation
(and reach the *goal*) we must considere that the
transfer is started when the parties have sent a
request to the staff.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> What we can also do is to add a new section with
advices for those who will need to start a inter RIR
transfer procedure. On that section, we shall explain
why they must not take more than one (?), two or three
months to complete the pre-process (b2b negociations).
They shall know and understand the risk to come too
late to the staff to request a transfer ; because the
negociation phase took too much time... :-/<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I don?t think this is possible. Transfers have a
lot of ?business talks? among the parties. Only once
the parties have reached an agreement, they need to go
into the process. You could do on the other way
around, it can be a mix of both. I don?t think the
community must provide a rule on that, because this
has not been done in other RIRs. If we try to setup
our own rule, then our policy will have mismatches
with the other policies and then we may be in the
situation that they are not reciprocal, or the
existing procedures in the other regions need to be
re-worked, why they are going to do it, now that we
are the last one?.<br>
> <br>
> If the staff tries to evaluate the transfers at a
single point in time, it may be misleading as some
operations in the opposite direction may be being
processed. The RIRs may have an ?alert? of a possible
transfer, depending on the direction, I don?t know if
the exiting coordination systems allow them to check
those (this will sort out the problem), but still will
not be precise, as some other folks may be
?negotiating? a transfer and have not yet informed the
relevant RIRs until the parties agree.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ok, we need a clarification from the staff. But
before that, i propose something below to address the
problem...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> If we stop the policy immediately the balance
becomes ?bad? for AFRINIC, then a transfer in the
other direction will not be able to happen. You see
the point.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ok you are right ! But let me try other
possibility|solution i see : are we still prioritising
incoming transfers ? :-)<br>
> <br>
> To be sure, i think we can include a similar (to
the following) text (about transfer procedure) :
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ?Initiators of a transfer must start the
procedure earlier by submitting their request. The
transfer procedure is concluded after a cycle of $four
months, devided in two periods of $two months for
each. Initiators submit their case to the staff and
wait for the staff to give their conclusion at least
$two months after the "submissions period" and not
more than $four months (including the "verification
period"). The staff will collect the cases
(submissions|requests) during the "submissions
period". The staff can start to study the cases
immediately, after receiving them, until the end of
the "verification period" which is coinciding with the
next "submission period"; while collecting other
cases. Those in line with the CPM (policy compliant)
at the end of the correspondent "verification period".
The staff should focus to the goal : keep the in/out
balance exceding. Incoming transfer submissions shall
be prioritised and treated separately.?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I don?t think this will work, as I just explained
a few reasons above. In principle I will not support
this.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> With this bit of text, i'm trying to solve a
problem you raised above.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It does, at least, the following : <br>
> <br>
> * To change the approach in considering that <br>
> <br>
> * We can considerably diminish the risk by
allowing the staff to study the transfer submissions
(cases) during the same dedicated "verifications
period" (even just during $one month if possible) and<br>
> <br>
> * Inform all the requestors only after the
"verifications period"<br>
> <br>
> * With the *goal* balance in mind :-)<br>
> <br>
> * Special treathment for incoming transfers ;-)<br>
> <br>
> * A cycle of four months within two equal periods
for submissions and verifications
<br>
> <br>
> * More control of the balance <br>
> <br>
> * Focus : *goal* balance<br>
> <br>
> * ...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> See below ? it is not needed. I think, just you
misunderstood my point 4.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We need to ?take a bit of risk?, considering that
the real risk, looking at the numbers I?ve presented
is really low.
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I agree, but just a *bit of risk* :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I wasn't able to follow your first presentation
during the PPM (Public Policy Meeting), just the
Hijacking one. Please share the slides of all your
policy proposal presentations.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> And now I realize this is part of the problem for
your questions. Please, pause this discussion until
you?re able to see the video of my presentation and
the slides! I guess then you may change a bit your
view about the risk, etc.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I already asked the staff (previous email) to
make sure they are published tomorrow. I think they
deserve the break today :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Remember that ?nobody? from AFRINIC is forced to
sell. Who will sell? Those that for example, reduce or
close the business, or those that deploy IPv6, etc.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ok it walk samely for incoming and outgoing
transfers. Considering that we have a seller and a
buyer on both side transfers.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Who will buy? Those that go to AFRINIC, ask for
more, can?t get all what they need, and try to get the
rest of their needs via transfers.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> What is the logic here? Why ARIN is the major
donator to all the other RIRs?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...to what i recall [1] they still have too much
unused IPv4 addresses.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> If we don?t take a risk, we lose.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...i'm ok with that, but let's try to find the
lowest risk :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> This means that if one month there are ?more
addresses going out?, it happens again the next month,
and it happens again by a third month and so on, then
is suspended.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...so monthly public reports should be needed
(for the community to follow-up and for more
transparency) ?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> If yes, let's clearly state|text it also.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I believe there is already a public AFRINIC
reporting of the Inter-RIR transfers, so we will see
this reported ASAP any transfer is completed I think.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Can someone share an uri ?<br>
> <br>
> I think we must insert this requirement to the
relevant section of the CPM, if not existent.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> If this is not the case (can please the staff
confirm?), I fully agree (for both Inter and
Intra-RIR) and will add a specific text so they are
reported, not just monthly, but with each completed
transfer.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> You are welcome ! Thanks :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Which this web page, any member, the board, etc.,
can tell the staff at any point, if they don?t realize
by themselves, ?hey what is going on here? Are we good
with the transfers??.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Yes, transparency and more power to the community
;-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I?ve also added a condition to make sure that
this policy only starts once we are in the next
exhaustion phase.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> So, you shall consider that, if AFRINIC
service|community doesn't gain anything in the balance
this policy should not be needed...<br>
> <br>
> And that should be clearly stated.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I agree with that, but I don?t think we need to
put that in the policy text, this should be in the
text of the policy justification.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...wasn't the point here. Apologize but English
is not my first tongue. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> What i was (trying) advising|suggesting is to
ensure to text it the clearest possible ; in order to
remove any ambiguity.<br>
> <br>
> I'm glad that you have seen, by yourself, that
there was a problem with the first zero state.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Got it, thanks! And nothing to excuse!<br>
> <br>
> Note that in order to make it simpler, I've used
a text that instead of talking about %, is stating
that the balance of in/out is reached. This way we
ensure that the total number of the "region IPv4
addresses" never can go down regarding the actual
figures, so Africa never will lose addresses. Do you
think this is good enough?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ok after policing this, it seems to be necessary
to clearly state, *?policily?*, that the staff must
follow-up (automatically) the in/out balance, with
regular (automated) public reports and a special
(auto) stop report (for the zero state).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I'm not sure how to "policy-ze" this idea.
Perhaps with a separate policy ?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I?m not completely sure to understand 100% what
you mean, but let me try anyway: Staff is mandated to
follow the policies. So, during the implementation the
staff will make the necessary provisions so they get
an alarm when the balance of in-coming vs out-going
addresses becomes cero. It may be done automatically
anyway, but at least they should get an ?alarm?. The
operational details about ?how? to implement this are
outside of the policy scope.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ok i am in accord with the logic of separation
between policy rules and their operational
implementations. I don't want us to ?policy-ze? the
implementation phase of any policy :-)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> But you probably miss something in my above
suggestion. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The point is that, if you don't clearly ask, via
a policy, for a regular (public) report (for example)
from the staff, you could not be sure to get it when
it shall be needed. Because, without a specific policy
provision, it will be just out of their duties...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Let?s try it again, based on all the discussion
(the numbers are just to split the text now, they will
be correctly placed in the relevant part of the policy
proposal when we ?reach consensus? about this text:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 1. Each time a transfer is completed, the
relevant, non-confidential information will be
automatically published in a specific web page,
including at least: Date of the transfer, transferred
addresses, source organization and RIR, destination
organization and RIR.<br>
> <br>
> 2. The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled
once AFRINIC enter into Exhaustion Phase 2 (<a href="http://5.4.3.2" target="_blank">5.4.3.2</a>
<<a href="http://5.4.3.2/" target="_blank">http://5.4.3.2/</a>>).<br>
> <br>
> 3. The Inter-RIR transfers will be
automatically suspended in case the number of outgoing
IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming ones by six
consecutive months.<br>
> <br>
> 4. The staff can provisionally suspend any
suspicious operation that creates a big unbalance
against AFRINIC, until the board takes a decision.<br>
> <br>
> See point 4. If there is any suspicious
unbalance, the suspension temporary suspension of
*that* operation protects our pool of addresses, for a
few days (I guess the board in that case should call
for a decision by email or by conference call), and
meanwhile, it can be observed if other ?incoming?
operations will restore the balance.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Possible solution, thanks for the effort you
produced above. But there is still more than
acceptable risk on it (including point 4) ; because
the next new transfer request can come after the *few*
days of suspension.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The point here is that the staff is still able to
suspend any suspicious operation. Not just one. Is not
that clear my text? (any)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Please look how to also consider the alternative
solution i have proposed above. I don't need you to
keep that text as it is, but to use it to figure how
it could be merged with yours and reduce the risk (no
suspension with it).<br>
> <br>
> __<br>
> <br>
> [1]: MIT and their 8 million IPv4 addresses ? <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html" target="_blank">
https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html</a>
<<a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html" target="_blank">https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html</a>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Friendly,<br>
> <br>
> --sb.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I really believe this is not needed, it can be
done applying the bylaws (very recently ARIN board
suspended in emergency a policy, so it is a good
demonstration that this works even if is not in the
policy) but I?m happy to keep this text if this means
that we are more unconcerned this way.<br>
> <br>
> What do you think?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Thanks!<br>
> <br>
> [...]<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________
RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">
RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
<<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> <br>
> **********************************************<br>
> IPv4 is over<br>
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">
http://www.theipv6company.com</a> <<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com/</a>><br>
> The IPv6 Company<br>
> <br>
> This electronic message contains information
which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
the individual(s) named above and further
non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached
files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
criminal offense. If you are not the intended
recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached
files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a
criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
sender to inform about this communication and delete
it.<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
<<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
<<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>>_______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190628/0764a333/attachment.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190628/0764a333/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 153, Issue 235<br>
*************************************<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span lang="ES">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list <a class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="ES"><br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above
and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information,
even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is
strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense,
so you must reply to the original sender to inform about
this communication and delete it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="ES"><br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above
and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information,
even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is
strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense,
so you must reply to the original sender to inform about
this communication and delete it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-808999991866313584moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>