[Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

Saul Stein saul at enetworks.co.za
Fri Oct 14 12:22:52 UTC 2016


Here are some interesting points.

As things stand:

1)      AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space

2)      If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there’d be a political 
uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to update its 
financial model ASAP

3)      As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren’t 
going to do extra work and migrate to v6

4)      We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption

So why not let v4 be used up naturally?

Why when asking for v4 space (and justifying it) to the afrinic staff reply 
with: “and in consideration to the policy principle of conservation” The 
policy for allocations is for another topic)

If the ISP/LIR has a requirement for the v4 space to be used on the 
continent, give it to them:

a)      Its earns AFRINIC much needed revenue (this enables training, 
research and other important project)

b)      Facilitates the natural rundown of v4 space

c)       Ultimately will employ more people on the continent as Kevin points 
out, you’ll now be duplicating work

Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it.

From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 14 October 2016 01:36 PM
To: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


What I was proposing below is *VERY* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis 

I have, and continue to, oppose this policy.  Because it will extend the 
life of v4 while we languish behind in terms of v6 deployment.  I’ve already 
stated in previous emails on this thread that there is a clear correlation 
between v6 deployment and v4 depletion – and this proposal you reference 
slows v4 depletion.

I’ve also already stated there are organizations out there going v6 only 
with CGN64 / DNS64 to talk to the v4 internet – and that has big 
implications for people not running any v6 in the long term, negative 

Slowly the depletion of v4 does not help this continent – it hurts it – 
badly.  Look at the global v6 deployment map – Africa’s v6 penetration 
levels by the latest APNIC reports are at 0.15% compared to a global average 
of 7.94% (And google puts global average at closer to 12%).  The difference? 
The rest of the world depleted v4 – Africa hasn’t – and the motivation isn’t 
there to deploy.

Every day we hold v4 space for general allocation is another day this 
continent falls further and further behind.  We need to be doing everything 
we can to *accelerate* v4 depletion – not slowing it down.

Btw – the reason I haven’t moved this discussion onto the policy list is 
because there are wider areas than just specific policies.  If we get into 
policy specific issues I’d rather go to the RPD list – but I do think ideas 
as to the acceleration of v4 depletion and the benefits and drawbacks behind 
it are very much a topic for discussion by the community.


From: Noah < <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> noah at neo.co.tz>
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20
To: Andrew Alston < <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC < <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net> 
community-discuss at afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett < 
<mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net> alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" < 
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> Andrew.Alston at 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...

 <http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis>http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bisI believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161014/5baaa71b/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list