IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region

 

Details
  • Ref. Name:
    AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT02
  • Submitted:
    23 July 2016
  • Versions: 2
  • Status:
    Implemented
  • Author:
    - Ali HADJI, Comores Telecoms
    - Komi ELITCHA 
    - Damnam Kanlanfei BAGOLIBE
    - Serge Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO, NIC CIS 
    - Nicholas Mbonimpa, RENU
    - Alain P. AINA, WACREN
  • Staff & Legal Assessment and Comments

1.0) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

Like the other Regional Internet Registries, AFRINIC will soon exhaust its IPv4 pool. In order to meet the needs of late resource requestors, a transfer policy for IPv4 resources within the region is needed. The goal of this policy is to define conditions under which transfers must occur.

 

2.0) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

The Policy solves the issue of an African organisation needing IPv4 number resources after the exhaustion of the AFRINIC IPv4 pool or when AFRINIC can no longer satisfy the needs of such an organization.

 

3.0) The Proposal

3.1 This policy takes effect as from phase 2 of the IPv4 soft landing policy (AFPUB-2010-v4-005) or its successor.

 

3.2 Both the source entity and recipient must be AFRINIC members.

 

3.3 Conditions on the source of the transfer:

 

3.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources recognized by AFRINIC, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.

 

3.3.2 Source entities will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval.

 

3.3.3 Source entities must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from AFRINIC for the 12 months prior to the approval of transfer request. This restriction excludes Mergers and Acquisitions transfers.

 

3.4 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer:

 

3.4.1 AFRINIC has to approve the recipients need for the IPv4 number resources. In order for an organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 resource needs before AFRINIC. That is to say, the organization must justify before AFRINIC its initial/additional allocation/assignment usage, as applicable, according to the policies in force.

 

3.4.2 The recipient must qualify for the amount of resources to be transferred by the same standards as would be applied to a request for an allocation or assignment directly from AFRINIC under current policies at the time of the request.

 

3.4.3 The recipient will be subject to current AFRINIC policies and sign the RSA for the resources being received.

 

3.4.4 Recipients must demonstrate the need for up to a 12-month supply of IPv4 address space.

 

4.0 Revision History

24 May 2016 First Draft AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT01 Posted to RPD List
22 Jul 2016 Version 2.0
  • Addition of Acknowledgement section (5.0)
  • Amendment of the policy's numbering
  • Modification of section 3.2.2 which becomes 3.4.2

 

5.0 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Owen Delong and Mark Elkins for their insights. Also thanks to all those who contributed actively in the discussions around this proposal.

 

6.0 References

AFPUB-2010-v4-005: https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy

 

 


 

Staff & Legal Assessment and Comments

Staff Comments:

  1. We understand that this is an AFRINIC-to-AFRINIC transfer proposal, and would not apply to inter-RIR transfers.
  2. We understand that this is an IPv4 proposal, and would not apply to IPv6 or ASNs.
  3. In 3.1 "This policy takes effect as from phase 2 of the IPv4 soft landing policy”. This proposal ties itself to the current soft landing policy - what if the soft-landing policy changes, is overhauled - or doesn’t have a phase 2 anymore? Let proposal not be contingent on wording that may change in future. The “Soft Landing Overhaul” for example -has no “Phase 2”. What happens if the "Soft Landing Overhaul" is ratified? Will this proposal then be irrelevant?
  4. Author to align proposal with CPM (delete AFPUB-2010-v4-005) or its successor and highlight precisely which CPM sections are added, modified, deleted and with what proposed text).
  5. In 3.3.3 - The current wording implies that the recipient of an inbound inter-RIR transfer in the past 12 months WOULD be allowed to make an outbound AFRINIC-to-AFRINIC transfer, while the recipient of an inbound AFRINIC-to-AFRINIC transfer in the past 12 months WOULD NOT be allowed to make an outbound AFRINIC-to-AFRINIC transfer.
  6. On “Disputes” - define what shall be considered to be adispute. AFRINIC does not have a process/guideline at the moment about disputes. It is also not clearly mentioned if AFRINIC shall consider a transfer request if there are any disputes around the receiving organisation.
  7. On “3.4.4“Recipients must demonstrate the need for up to a 12-month supply of IPv4 address space.”CPM - 5.4.5 states that the current allocation and assignment period of 12 months shall be changed to 8 months. Proposal 3.4.4 should be realigned with the allocation period that is in force at the time, or simply deleted because it's implied by the requirement for the recipient to qualify under current policies.

 

 

Last Modified on -