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

[Owen DeLong]

--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:42 PM +0200 Johann Botha 
<joe at frogfoot.net> wrote:

> Hi Leo
> >@2003.09.24_16:43:28_+0200
>
> First of all, let me say I support this porposal 100%
>
> I believe we need to see a change in IP allocation criteria for the
> African region.. even if only by one bit, if not by two as in the
> proposal. And if we dont see this change while ARIN controls our regions
> alloctations then we will see it when AfriNIC does... so why wait?, why
> hamper growth?
>
I believe we need this change globally, and, I see nothing so far that
makes Africa a special case.  I will support this proposal if it is
ARIN global.  I will not support this proposal if it is sub-region specific.
What AfriNIC may or may not do after it gets created if it gets created
is not something I am willing to consider a factor in developing ARIN
policy.  I don't see any reason to wait or hamper growth in North America
or Africa.  I certainly don't see a reason to give <=10000 user ISPs in
Africa an advantage over <=10000 user ISPs in North America.

> I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other
> regions.
>
I think you will have a problem if ARIN does not.

> If porposal 2003-15 is adopted I think it will have a negligible impact on
> the size of the global routing table and I cant think of any other
> technical reason not to accept this porposal.
>
There is no technical reason not to make it global, either.

>> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subscribers get to
>> multihome, yet E-Bay with several gigabits of traffic and millions
>> of users not?
>
> Because renumbering 5 webservers is not the same sport as renumbering an
> entire ISP client base.. and content providers in Africa are also usually
> not multi-homed.
>
1.	Ebay has far more than 5 webservers.
2.	Renumbering a /22 for 1000 dialup subscribers is nowhere near as
	difficult as renumbering a /22 worth of content hosting.  Therefore,
	I see less reason to make an exception for African ISPs.

>> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subcribers get to
>> multihome, but a US ISP with a DS-3 and 10000 subscribers not?
>
> Why do you care ? What do you stand to loose ? Ever been to Africa ? It's
> very clear there is a need for this policy change.. and more importantly..
> there is support for it.
>
Ever been to North America and looked at the reality of being a small(er)
ISP here?  It's very clear there is a need for this policy change.
More importantly, there is support for it, but, to some extent, it is an
opressed minority.

> If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
> space.. well, then submit a proposal.
>
There is a proposal on the table for MicroAllocations.  If African ISPs
want this policy (2002-3 if memory serves), they should support it.  At
best, 2003-15 is an attempt to get what Africa wants/needs while leaving
the rest of ARINs geography twisting in the wind.  My advice would be that
if African ISPs want this, they should get behind the global microallocation
policy and make good use of the allies that will bring to the table.

> I think this should be an open and shut case, pick a block of IPs to be
> moved to AfriNIC soon and start handing out /22s to African networks who
> fit the criteria. In my mind this is a smart solution until AfriNIC is up
> and running and has no real impact on non African ARIN members.
>
I think this should be an open and shut case and African ISPs should get
behind a global policy to move the prefix size to /22.  I agree that ARINs
current operational practice of assigning Africa out of distinct /8(s) is
a good idea.  That way, if AfriNIC comes into existance, those /8(s) can
be transferred easily to AfriNIC.  However, creating exceptions to global
policy for Africa because AfriNIC may adopt a similar policy if AfriNIC
comes into existance is absurd.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for AfriNIC coming into existance and for them
being able to set whatever policies meet the needs of their region if they
do (within ICANN/IANA guidelines).  However, until then, I don't see making
sub-regional exceptions as a good plan.  Especially ones that solve a 
problem
that is not unique to the sub-region.

>           'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
>                                  - Leonardo da Vinci

It is much simpler to make a global policy for a global problem.

Owen