This new idea looks promising. It seems to be within Afrinic's obligations
as defined by the community(if passed)/IANA, and it also accelerates the
'exhaustion' of our v4 resources in a manner that does not create
Noah, yes, the soft-landing policy you are referring leans heavily in this
direction and I would fully support it if its gains a clear majority. My
understanding of it, however, is that it is not pretty much the same thing.
It is still very open-ended and provides a chance for us to be stuck with
v4 much longer than need be.
Following the extreme idea of stopping allocations now, perhaps the already
allocated resources could sustain the continent say for at least two years
- a long time considering for instance, how many v4-only devices are being
sold to knowing/unknowing consumers every single day. So, whose soft
landing are we referring to here.
Placing a majority of the remaining address space into the fund (trust)
means that they are not easily available for allocation to commercial
parties (OUR requirements could be served within a community-defined and
extensively communicated time frame of which I will say even just 6 months
would be enough) and we therefore do not have to all wait on the others to
provide the required impetus.
On 14 October 2016 at 13:20, Noah <n...@neo.co.tz> wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>
> > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that
> need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to
> prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and
> announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the
> project would have to provide KPI’s etc etc.
> +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you.
> Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative...
> I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.
> Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss mailing list