[afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6 lately, since the 1st of January, 2013?

[Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on IPv6")]

We live and learn :-)

Yes, I have totally forgotten the bandwidth issue. We had this requirement
when intending to install one at the University of Luxembourg.

This reminds me the old Canadian story of Archie killed by the University of
Montreal because of bandwidth consumption. Alan Emtage has done so much for
the Internet, did not deserve that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Emtage


______________Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2013 19:20
To: 'IPv6 in Africa'; carlos at lacnic.net
Cc: 'Guy Antony Halse'; 'Nishal Goburdhan'
Subject: RE: [afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6 lately, since the
1st of January, 2013?

Interestingly enough, it would be kinda nice to run a proper IPv6 tunnel
broker in South Africa, however, there are problems doing this.

a.) You would need to find a place to host it that had access to LIR based
v6 space, using PI space for this would be a violation of the agreements
with AfriNIC as I understand it
b.) Since there are (sadly) still many home users on capped v4 DSL, where
the bandwidth is capped internationally, the *perfect* way to bypass
international capping would be through v6 tunneling through a local server,
this means you're potentially going to chew a *LOT* of bandwidth doing this.
c.) Without proper v6 bandwidth control mechanisms, doing this isn't really
viable
d.) There would *potentially* be legal issues with doing this, since
technically you would be providing certain services that may or may not
require certain licensing in South Africa, and secondly, you may also
potentially run into issues with laws that force identity tracking (the RICA
act in South Africa).

Point (d) I'm honestly not sure about though and would need to consult with
a lawyer, though I'd be curious to hear Guy's take on this one.  Would
running a public tunnel broker potentially violate RICA in a similar manner
that something like certain academic services could if used without the host
institution knowing the end users true identity?

Believe me, it's something worth considering and I'll look into the
possibilities and talk to certain parties to see if we can find a way to do
something, but I'm being open and upfront about the challenges involved.
(By the way, for the record, TENET *DID* used to run a 6to4 relay when I was
there, it was withdrawn because certain uRPF configurations on a certain
major ISP in South Africa broke the return traffic rather badly, and that
caused lotsa nasty phone calls to me from 6to4 users that found things
broken)

Thanks

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Latif LADID ("The
New Internet based on IPv6")
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:47 PM
To: carlos at lacnic.net; 'IPv6 in Africa'
Cc: 'Guy Antony Halse'; 'Nishal Goburdhan'
Subject: RE: [afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6 lately, since the
1st of January, 2013?

I do highly encourage this.

Make it a call to ISP's who wish to work with you on this, most probably
reading these emails and wondering how can they lift this discussion to
action.


Cheers
Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2013 18:37
To: IPv6 in Africa
Cc: Guy Antony Halse; 'Nishal Goburdhan'; carlos at lacnic.net
Subject: Re: [***SPAM***] RE: [afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6
lately, since the 1st of January, 2013?

6rd can be deployed in a user-friendly-enough manner, given the proper CPEs
are used.

These CPEs are bound to be more expensive than the run-of-the-mill cheap
Chinese stuff ISPs usually roll. However, even stopping saying 'we don't
support IPv6' to a 'we do support IPv6 albeit it might cost you X dollars
for the new CPE' would be a giant leap forward.

X is not necessarily a big number. The E1500 I mentioned was sold at retail
at around 160 dollars in Uruguay where everything is _very_ expensive. A
large ISP could order them directly in quantities from Cisco FOB Miami and
get much better prices.

I think such a strategy could provide (a) useful deployment experience,
(b) could probably reach 1% of the installed base easily. Those two would,
IMO, be two giant steps forward.

I would gladly work together with people in ISPs who would like to fine-tune
numbers and maybe actually roll-out something.

regards

~Carlos



On 2/20/13 11:02 AM, Guy Antony Halse wrote:
> On Wed 2013-02-20 (13:59), Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on
> IPv6")
wrote:
>> You don't need native to use v6 at this stage as a v6 tunnel offers 
>> exactly the same service at least for testing purposes. Hurricane,
>> gogo6 (or gondle)
> 
> Joe Public DSL user isn't interested in configuring a tunnel of their 
> own or testing anything.  They simply want to be able to update Facebook.
> 
> So yes, tunnelling works.  I do it.  Nishal does it.  Many other geeks 
> like us do it.  Until ISPs do it as a matter of course on consumer 
> CPE, it's really not going to help with the wholesale adoption of v6 
> at the edge :(
> 
> - Guy
> 
_______________________________________________
afripv6-discuss mailing list
afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

_______________________________________________
afripv6-discuss mailing list
afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

_______________________________________________
afripv6-discuss mailing list
afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss