[Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?

Fri Oct 28 09:30:41 UTC 2016

On 28 October 2016 at 09:21, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> There are a number of flaws in your question, Omo.
>
> I neither support nor oppose IPv4 obsolescence. I state it as a fact. It
> is my considered opinion that when a protocol no longer fully serves the
> community of users it is intended to serve and/or requires those users to
> adapt to limitations on their use of the network in order to meet the needs
> of the protocol, that protocol is, by definition, obsolete and no longer
> able to meet the full needs of the user community.
>
> This is simply fact.
>
>
English is not my native tongue but I understand obsolete to be different
from deprecated

A protocol that is still more in use than the alternative and commands
additional value in a secondary market cannot be referred to as obsolete by
definition

IPv4 is no longer able to deliver the full feature set of the internet to
> the entire user community. It does not have enough addresses to give a
> unique peer address to every device attached to the internet.
>
> If you can disprove this simple fact about IPv4, I welcome you to do so,
> but if not, then I again say that IPv4 is, by definition, obsolete.
>

Deprecated

>
> There are lots of obsolete things still in widespread use. Some countries
> still use paper airline tickets
>

You use the word obsolete too loosely.

> .
>
> I also don’t favor accelerated runout of IPv4 in the AfriNIC region or
> anywhere else.
>

Good.  This is noted.

>
> What I do favor is allocating addresses to those with need now without
> protecting those late to the party at the expense of those present at the
> party.
>

> I see no reason to deprive an organization which needs addresses now in
> order to satisfy some demand from some other organization which may or may
> not exist at some future time.
>
>
Maybe in ARIN.  In AFRINIC, we have a situation where;

- most of the numbers are in the hands of a minority
- where those transitioning to IPv6 will need some IPv4 so accommodation
has to be made for latecomers
- a global situation where IPv4 still rules even though IPv6 uptake is now
on the rise ....slowly
- a local situation where we need to innovate and work collectively to
speed up IPv6 uptake

I work for NRENs and universities, most of whom predate and will outlive
most other organizations so don't agree with you.

 <snip>

> I will also point out that working for Akamai does not mean that I will
> automatically agree with every conclusion any random person draws from data
> supplied by Akamai.
>

I asked you to refute not necessarily agree.  Do you have a view on the
data that suggests different?

>
> Now for some more substantive and targeted criticisms:
>
> If we look at his slide 23 (IPv6 penetration vs Bandwidth), we see clearly
> that in some countries, the eyeball penetration vastly exceeds content and
> vice versa. This is obvious from the “outliers” on his graph and yet he
> makes no mention of this possible explanation whatsoever.
>

This is a fact.  Why is an explanation necessary?

>
> I suspect that many (possibly all) of the countries on the far left side
> of that graph are countries not served by Netflix where the primary sources
> of internet content are not at all unlikely to be IPv4-only which places
> strong limitations on the ability of deployed IPv6-capable eye-balls to
> obtain their content overIPv6.
>

Your suspicion only buttresses the data and authors conclusion i.e that
numbers on IPv6 penetration do not correlate with usage and IPv4 is still
predominantly in use in these countries.

> At the other end of the graph, it is likely representative of the reverse
> situation… IPv6 content available while a limited number of eye-balls have
> IPv6 capabilities at this time.
>
>
yes, that only a handful of countries globally have the IPv6 capabilities
and usage  the figures often touted would want us to believe.

The talk speaks to the relationship of GDP and IPv6 deployment and says
> nothing about whether or not exhaustion will drive migration.
>

Perhaps the author didn't think he was qualified or had the expertise to
make this judgement.  Different in your case?

>
> Owen
>
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet
>> which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake.  In
>> fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the
>> way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for.  Please see
>> attached slide.  The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC
>> meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ -
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0
>>
>
> Owen,
>
> Honest has a point.  The author used the Akamai state of internet study as
> one of the data sources.  As a vocal proponent of accelerated IPv4
> depletion in AFRINIC, what do you think of the opinions expressed in the
> study?
>
> It certainly doesn't support obsolescence of IPv4 as you promote.  Btw, so
> we can compare, do you have any data that supports your view?
>
> Like others,  I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to
> be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who
> advocate to other stakeholders.
>
> -Omo
>
> <http:/>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>

-- 
Omo Oaiya
CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224
Skype: kodion
http://www.wacren.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161028/20a2d285/attachment.html>