[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[Richard Jimmerson]

Hello Leo,

> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the 
> discussion so far it seems both are assigning space.  This 
> surprises me, as I thought things had been divided up 
> geographically.  I don't think we want two (or more) people 
> assinging space to the same group.

APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC all provide registration services
in Africa, but not all to the same countries.  The Africa
service region is currently split between these three RIRs.
Information about which RIR provides services to particular
countries is available at:

http://www.arin.net/library/internet_info/countries.html

Best Regards,

-Richard Jimmerson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:26 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation 
> Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
> 
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:46:46AM 
> +0200, Adiel AKPLOGAN wrote:
> > *** for those wondering why ISP can not get IP from their upstream? 
> > One reason can be the coast for raising their membership level 
> > (category) according to the RIR fees model. Using more IP 
> address by 
> > providing smaller blocks to their down stream can and up at 
> their end  
> > with the need to move to higher membership level and then 
> paying more 
> > for IP block allocated to them....
> 
> I can see this is a very legitimate problem.  ARIN fees when 
> translated to local currency and put in the context of an 
> ISP's budget may be much more of a burden.  I don't think 
> anyone wants the ARIN support fee to prevent people from 
> getting the IP's they need, so if that's a problem we should 
> get some economic data and look at how we can make the fee 
> less of a burden to African ISP's.
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:15:16PM 
> +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
> > Our policy applies to the whole of the RIPE NCC service 
> region. We do 
> > not have any policies that apply to a sub-set of countries 
> within our 
> > region.
> [snip]
> > We have 69 active LIRs in the part of Africa served by the 
> RIPE NCC. 
> > We have made 149 IPv4 allocations to these LIRs (about a /12 when
> > combined) and assigned 49 AS Numbers.
> > 
> > We have made eight PI assignments to network operators in 
> Africa since 
> > July 2001. There were all between /24 and /22.
> 
> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the 
> discussion so far it seems both are assigning space.  This 
> surprises me, as I thought things had been divided up 
> geographically.  I don't think we want two (or more) people 
> assinging space to the same group.
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:32:14AM 
> +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > It was already pointed out that portable space is needed for 
> > multihoming and, in Africa, there are more frequent outages for 
> > single-homed providers, therefore in order to increase 
> service levels 
> > a provider needs to multihome. And since these are smaller 
> companies 
> > on average it makes sense to allocate them smaller portable 
> blocks to 
> > avoid wasting IP addresses.
> 
> Portable space is not /needed/ to multihome.  Portable space, 
> in many cases, makes multi-homing easier, but there are more 
> than a few ways to do it without.
> 
> > Since current policies make it impossible for African ISPs to get 
> > portable blocks, current policies are making multihoming impossible 
> > therefore current policies are an indirect cause of low 
> service levels 
> > in Africa.
> 
> s/African ISPs/small providers in the ARIN service region/
> s/in Africa/in areas where only a small ISP exists/
> 
> While the African's may have brought this up with their 
> proposal, this is not a situation unique to them.  They may 
> well be the largest affected group though.
> 
> > In this special case, I don't see a problem with setting special 
> > policies
> > for one geographic area. This is a transitional policy that 
> is part of the
> > process of setting up an African RIR to handle the needs of 
> ISPs that are
> > now served by RIPE and ARIN and APNIC. I would be opposed 
> to special 
> > policies
> > for California or Newfoundland but I support them for 
> continental Africa.
> 
> I guess we will just have to disagree on that point.  I am a 
> firm believer that RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, and any others that 
> come along should have the same rules for allocating IPv4 
> space.  There are two simple reasons, first, it is a global 
> resource, and second if they are different companies that are 
> able to span regions will be at an advantage by being able to 
> pick and choose.  While I don't know the exact players, I'll 
> bet there's at least one international ISP in Africa that 
> gives away IP's like water because they have a larger 
> allocation from somewhere else (eg, the old "you get a /24 
> with every T1" sort of sales campaign).  Differing policies 
> fuel that sort of abuse.
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>