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

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Sep 24 12:00:40 EDT 2003


In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:42:01PM +0200, Johann Botha wrote:
> 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 have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other regions.

Then please support 2002-3.  There are three basic positions, people
who don't want to move the prefix size, people who want to move it
globally, and people who want to move it in Africa.  If the latter
two combine efforts behind 2003-3 it will be more likely to pass,
where as if they both continue both are likely to be rejected for
lack of support.

For the record, I generally support 2002-3.  I would like to see
it done differently, but it's the only proposal currently on the
table that does what I want to see, so that's the one I need to
support.

> > 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.

I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
all, so I should be able to multi-home too".  This policy change will
have impact to other regions, and ARIN must consider that when it
makes policy.

> If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
> space.. well, then submit a proposal.

One is already there, 2002-3.  I support it.

> 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.

Now, that is a horse of a different color.  I had no idea allocations
were so fragmented across the continent (I had simply never looked
before), and now that I see RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC are all involved
I am a strong supporter of getting an AfriNIC up and running to
unify the process in that region.  They would of course be free to
set their own policies -- however I still believe there should be
generally the same policy worldwide.

At the end of the day 2003-15 seems to treat a symptom of the real
problem, rather than the problem.  We need to pass 2002-3 and solve
the IP allocation size issue for everyone.  We need to create AfriNIC
and unify the African allocations.  We don't need to apply a region
specific band-aid.

-- 
       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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030924/212bf564/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list