AFRINIC-8 Public Policy Meeting Minutes | 4 June 2008 | Rabat Morocco

 

Policy proposal 1: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space by Haitham El Nakhal (NTRA)

To view the Policy: click here

Introduction: Policy defines distribution last pieces of IPv4 address space to RIRs.
AfriNIC-7 discussed two proposals for same concept; one was for 2*/8 for each RIR
and another for one */8 for each RIR. N=2 for each RIR reached consensus but after ARIN meeting, ARIN advisory council advised to work with JPNIC on the same concept with N=1.

 

How does the new new policy proposal work?

IANA reserves one /8 for each RIR and set them out of its free pool. And IANA will keep applying the same policy until its free pool becomes empty or until the request of an RIR can’t be fulfilled with its remaining available pool.

 

Status in other RIR:
ARIN: consensus was reached during ARIN XXI and approved by ARIN AC.
RIPE: Discussed in mailing lists and will be discussed in next meeting.
LACNIC: Consensus was reached during last meeting.
APNIC: Under discussion in mailing list and will be discussed in APNIC-26.

Vincent Ngundi opened the floor for discussion by the community to see if consensus could be reached during the meeting..

 

Questions/Comments that were raised in relation to this policy came from:

• Randy Bush, the current chair of the APNIC policy working group, who asked for more explanation on the actual purpose of this policy and he emphasized on planning of the /8 by RIRs. He also commented that though N=1 is going to be hard to get through RIPE, so he suggested to compromise with N=1.
• Mouhamet Diop asked for a summary of the policy and a comment which was raised by Randy. Haitham gave a summary on the working principle of this policy and further elaborated by giving an example: If the free pool of IANA has one /8 and they get a request from an RIR for IPv4 and will allocate the last /8 to that RIR and at the same time will allocate a /8 to each RIR from the reserved pool.
• Mouhamet Diop was not in favour of this policy as he thought that Africa was disadvantaged in the past, and it is only now that mobile and broadband networks are expanding. In the past, people who were ready for deployment took the space when Africa was not ready.
• Randy Bush said that it needed to be a global policy. Given a choice N=1 or none, there was a need to choose one.
• Alan Barrett said that he supported what Randy said. Global policy meant that exactly the same wording passes in all regions before it takes effect. There was a need to either pick something which will pass in all regions or pass a complete new proposal.
• A Member of ARIN advisory council reported that discussions took place in ARIN’s mailing list. He agreed that it was a disadvantage for African community who was late deployers. Choice will be between N=1 or 2 as N=1 has already passed two other RIRs. So, we need to have same wording.
• Vincent Ngundi emphasised that it is important that consensus be reached during this meeting as it is currently N=0and we do not know what may happen between this and next meeting.
• Mouhamet Diop stated that the community needed to come to a compromise situation, with open possibility to share the way all think about managing the free pool. In his opinion, the best decision would be to adopt N=1.
  Mark Elkins stated that in Durban, the issue was also largely discussed about the options of N=2 or 3. If it is seen that other regions have adopted N=1, and the alternative is N=0, it should be pretty clear cut that the community should go for N=1 which is a lot better than none.
• Randy Bush said that he has been in Africa for 20 years because he cares about fairness. If we care of fairness, we will run out of IPv6 before this discussion finishes.
• Michuki Mwangi said he was of opinion that N=1 would be in favour of the community and that the proposal should be considered in a positive way.
  Vincent concluded that, based on the discussions, it can be stated that consensus was reached. There would be no need to vote each and every time unless, the community had substantial objection.

 

 

Policy proposal 2: Vincent presenting on behalf of Tony Hain-Cisco

To view the Policy: click here

This policy establishes the process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool effective after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30-day supply, and will result in up to a 3-month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool There has been no support in AfriNIC RPD mailing list. Some notable comments on AfriNIC mailing list:

McTim: “Clearly, this proposal has downsides for our community. If we accept this, then the last /8(s) given to AfriNIC by the IANA will be shared by the other RIRs with higher burn rates.”
Randy: “one /8 per RIR at the end proposal seems useful, David Conrad's soft landing proposal seems reasonable but the real problem is the vendors”

 

Status on other RIRs:

ARIN : Rejected
APNIC : Rejected
RIPE : under discussion,
LACNIC: not discussed
AfriNIC: to be determined today.
Note: This policy cannot go through due to Global Policy Development Process as it has been rejected in at least one region.

Similar or related polices
Global Distribution of Remaining IANA IPv4 Address Space
David Conrad’s Soft Landing Proposal

Questions/Comments that were raised in relation to this policy came from:

• Alain Barrett asked if a representative from LACNIC could tell the audience about the policy proposal as he did not think the soft landing has been proposed in the AfriNIC region.
• Randy stated that the proposal should be rejected.
• Mohamed Diop saw the policy as a good opportunity for African organisations to get address space and collaborate.
• LACNIC member informed that the policy never went to mailing list and was not discussed during the last meeting.
• Alan Barrett addressed two questions; one to ARIN and the second one to AfriNIC. He wanted to know the current acceleration rate and the duration of a /8 for these two RIRs.
• Ray Plzak from ARIN replied that it was about: 3-4 months and Adiel Akplogan from AfriNIC: 2 and half years globally.
• Bill Woodcock said that this was entirely collaborative and would need good will from all RIRs.
• Alan Barrett said that he was against the proposal and suggested to let RIR deal with their last /8 without transferring too much between each RIR.
• Philip Smith said he would echo to what Alan said.
• Ray Plzak informed that the proposal was rejected in ARIN region as it was thought to be unfair.

Vincent Ngundi stated that following discussions, the policy received adverse opinions and is rejected in the AfriNIC region. He then proceeded in closing the session.