<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="en-KE" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Who in Africa?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I can think of several players actually – who could actually use that space today because of chronic CGN that’s in place that causes issues an expense.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I don’t believe in naming entities without their permission – but your assumption that seems to be there – and if I misread that assumption I apologize - that there aren’t players who
can use that kinda space on the continent – are incorrect<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-KE" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 15 July 2019 23:37<br>
<b>To:</b> AfriNIC List <rpd@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In message <<a href="mailto:046477A7-21A8-4C2D-AD47-DBE34D7D03D6@delong.com">046477A7-21A8-4C2D-AD47-DBE34D7D03D6@delong.com</a>>,
<br>
Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>In my experience, only AfriNIC and LACNIC ever really had much serious concern<br>
>over that issue in considering inter-RIR transfer policies. Clearly LACNIC<br>
>has finally come to the conclusion that it is less of a concern than being<br>
> isolated from being able to import addresses as they have passed a bi-<br>
>directional transfer policy.<br>
><br>
>AfriNIC is now the lone holdout from the rest of the world on this issue.<br>
>AfriNIC has very little space (relatively speaking) to offer even if every<br>
>AfriNIC resource holder were to sell their entire holdings out of region (very <br>
>Unlikely).<br>
><br>
>Personally, I can't see any motivation for the other regions to accept<br>
>such an idea. Can you?<br>
<br>
For whatever little it's worth, I just feel compelled to say that Owen's<br>
argument here does not appear to me to be a very persuasive one.<br>
<br>
I think that we are all familiar with the concept of a "race to the bottom",<br>
where regulations are loosened up in one state or province or country,<br>
thereby effectively forcing others to follow suit in order to stay<br>
"competitive", with the end result being that all regions suffer at the<br>
hands of inexorable "market forces".<br>
<br>
That all having been said, if the primary concern is the possibility (or<br>
actually, high probability) of an eventual actual shortage, it is my personal<br>
feeling that there are other and better ways to stave off, for the time<br>
being at least, that certain eventuality... ways other than restricting<br>
inter-RiR transfers.<br>
<br>
For example, I have noted that even now, in the current Afrinic "exhaustion" <br>
phase, it is still perfectly within the current policy for Afrinic to grant,<br>
to some single entity, as much as an entire /13 in a single assignment.<br>
Personally, I feel that that is grossly excessive and that the policy limit<br>
could be and should be set much lower, e.g. to e /14 or a /15 or perhaps<br>
even to a /16. (Who in Africa is likely to need such big blocks at this<br>
point in time, and all in one gulp?)<br>
<br>
Also and separately, I noted during the discussions of this proposed<br>
intra-RiR transfer policy that at least one person (sorry, I have forgotten<br>
who it was now) made a side comment about the holding period before any<br>
given number resource could be transfered to another region, and quoted it<br>
as being one year.<br>
<br>
Quite obvviously, nobody is particularly concerned about running out of<br>
either ASNs or IPv6 addresses. So the issue/question really boils down<br>
to just the issue of the holding period for IPv4 blocks.<br>
<br>
It is my understanding... and I may perhaps be wrong about this... that<br>
the required minimum holding period for IPv4 blocks, before they may be<br>
transfered (either out of region or at all) in the case of RIPE is two<br>
years. (I don't know what time periods the other regions are using, but<br>
I'm fairly sure about the RIPE one.) On that basis, I think that it<br>
would be unwise and ill-advised for Afrinic to adopt any more lenient<br>
policy regarding the minimum holding period. Doing so would only serve<br>
to encourage speculators at the expense of actual service to the African<br>
continent, in the first instance.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>