Mark, I agree with you on the point of stopping allocations from going outside the AfriNIC region; However, the issue of making it part of the softlanding policy may cause abit of confusion as the end users can claim ignorance of it existing, this will compel us to add a reference to it in the current allocation policy..........................so why not just have it there?
The easier way to would be putting in the current policy or append it to the ULA, against which all LIR's sign before they get the addresses. If there is any factsheets that are sent out to prospecting addresses recepients, it can be updated to reflect this info. Regards, Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329 If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem. --- On Thu, 5/21/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 1:50 PM Send rpd mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (SM) 2. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Douglas Onyango) 3. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Ernest - (AfriNIC)) 4. IPv4 Soft Landing (Mark Elkins) 5. IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (Mark Elkins) 6. Re: IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (ALAIN AINA) 7. Re: IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (Alan Barrett) 8. Re: IPv4 Soft Landing (Alan Barrett) 9. Re: IPv4 Soft Landing (McTim) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:12:24 -0700 From: SM <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 To: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Douglas Onyango <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Ernest, At 02:44 19-05-2009, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote: >That graph is cumulative. I read that incorrectly. >Please find attached the graph showing numbers allocated *per year* That shows around one third of a /8 IPv4 address block allocated in the year 2007. The year 2008 doesn't follow the growth trend. Regards, -sm ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 00:41:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Douglas Onyango <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ernest, Thanks for availing the stats and SM for the comments; its very apparent that if we move by allocation we are going to have around two and ahalf years to exhaust our /8 pool, needless to mention that we intended to reserve another /16 for unforeseen circumstances(Assumption: 0.350, is projected allocation for subsquent years) Ernest, in the current v4 allocation policy, you require the applicant to have proof of efficient use of address space, and also to have exceeded an 80% utilization threshold before applying for any subsequent allocations. Could you kindly bring up a similar graph (if possible), only it should be based on usage as opposed to allocation. Rationale: Allocations and actual usage we all agree are different, and in a time of scarcity like this, I would suggest we work with stats from the later and formulate a good policy and ensure adherence as we know this will be the switch to this pools life support system. Leo: Generosity beyond this level(both on allocation size and blocks), I really doubt if it will be possible. Hard figures are not available so I cannot do any further processing of the data, but If i were to take the highest value 0.350 as projected allocations for the subsequent years, and factor in our current 90% usage threshold, people should be able to use 10% more addresses before asking for more(10% delay) Technically if we are not giving it out, we are keeping it, hence the pools live can be sustained for an extra 10%; With all other factors constant this would be approximately four years. PS: Some factors may not remain constant in my assumptions, but i believe the leverage from usage based projections should even things. Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329 If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem. --- On Tue, 5/19/09, SM <[email protected]> wrote: From: SM <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 To: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Douglas Onyango" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 5:12 PM Hi Ernest, At 02:44 19-05-2009, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote: >That graph is cumulative. I read that incorrectly. >Please find attached the graph showing numbers allocated *per year* That shows around one third of a /8 IPv4 address block allocated in the year 2007. The year 2008 doesn't follow the growth trend. Regards, -sm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090520/bc3eb26c/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:24:37 +0300 From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 To: Douglas Onyango <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 hi Douglas, I take it you want to see the amount of address space (within the AfriNIC service region) currently announced to the internet. Please see: http://airrs.afrinic.net/report/ Hope this helps. regards, eb. > Could you kindly bring up a similar graph (if possible), only it > should be based on usage as opposed to allocation. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:55:39 +0200 From: Mark Elkins <[email protected]> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing To: [email protected] Message-ID: <1242892539.24617.9.ca...@ilinux> Content-Type: text/plain The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8. This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now (whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is effectively amended to stop this. -- . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready /| /| / /__ [email protected] - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:57:52 +0200 From: Mark Elkins <[email protected]> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <[email protected]> Message-ID: <1242896272.24617.22.ca...@ilinux> Content-Type: text/plain I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space - as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6. If AfriNIC were to allocate address space to such organisations at zero cost that were truly not simply 'non-profit' but had no revenue collection system or stream - then I'd be happy to see that happen. They - of course - would have no membership privileges (ie - voting). I only worry whether this could be abused. I understand that it would be difficult to be policed. -- . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready /| /| / /__ [email protected] - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:21:29 +0000 From: ALAIN AINA <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks To: [email protected] Cc: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On May 21, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that > there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space - > as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6. ULA --alain > > > If AfriNIC were to allocate address space to such organisations at > zero > cost that were truly not simply 'non-profit' but had no revenue > collection system or stream - then I'd be happy to see that happen. > They - of course - would have no membership privileges (ie - voting). > > I only worry whether this could be abused. > I understand that it would be difficult to be policed. > -- > . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready > /| /| / /__ [email protected] - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE > / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090521/dbf35cb9/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:24:50 +0300 From: Alan Barrett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote: > I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that > there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space - > as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6. It seems to me that the author's organisation could qualify as an LIR and obtain an IPv6 /32 under existing policies. I don't understand the relevance of RFC1918 above -- presumably the organisation would wan tto be properly conencted to the global Internet, not to use private address space. I also don't understand the relevance of the reference to IPv6 PI policy in the proposal -- the organisations targeted by this proposal are themselves providers who would qualify as LIRs; they are not end users who would need to either get space from an upstream provider or get PI space from an RIR. --apb (Alan Barrett) ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:27:17 +0300 From: Alan Barrett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote: > The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8. > > This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address > pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now > (whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is > effectively amended to stop this. I think that policy changes to prevent the use of AfriNIC-allocated adress space outside Africa should be done (if at all) in separate proposals, not tacked on to a proposal about something different. --apb (Alan Barrett) ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:40:00 -0200 From: McTim <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing To: Alan Barrett <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Alan Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote: >> The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8. >> >> This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address >> pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now >> (whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is >> effectively amended to stop this. > > I think that policy changes to prevent the use of AfriNIC-allocated > adress space outside Africa should be done (if at all) in separate > proposals, not tacked on to a proposal about something different. Agreed. One of the weaknesses of the original proposal was that it tried to do too much. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 **********************************
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
