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

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Fri Oct 28 17:42:47 UTC 2016

Sorry where I referred to v4, I meant v6


From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 28 October 2016 20:32
To: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>; Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?

- We know the rate of IPv6 penetration in those regions - generally low

- Huge secondary market in the US for v4, penetration level at 17.94% (PREFERRED AND USED: 16.6%)
- Huge secondary market in Europe for v4, penetration level at 11.07% (PREFERRED AND USED: 10.53%)

VERY few transfers in Asia by comparison, penetration level at 3.18% (PREFERRED AND USED: 2.53%)

Africa – still has space – penetration level at 0.07% (PRFERRED AND USED: 0.07%)

Sorry – data does not back up what you are saying – how about some real facts and figures and statistics please?

- Now we have data that shows that IPv6 penetration is not necessarily IPv6 usage and is generally less than reported.

The figures above show the actual usage figures

I just needed to make this clear now that we have the attention of the community and co-chairs on how to proceed with the PDP

-                      You seem to have a very strange view of the community Omo, there are 1300+ members, I’ve seen less than 20 commenting on this list – so I don’t know how you can judge that you have the idea of the way the community is going.

On 28 October 2016 at 10:12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net<mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:

On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

>  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.

I 100% agree…


and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don’t understand that correlation.

I don't know where you got this from.   Honest's point is that there is NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data

You guys are talking across each other.

Honest’s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn’t say what Honest said.

It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion.

Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no evidence of any such lack of correlation.

Sadly, I’ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered.

Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding?

If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now claiming it says.

As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them?

No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is at odds with your opinions.  From what I can see, she is correct.

Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at LACNIC?

If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology.

This isn’t exactly startling news.

However, it’s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn’t a meaningful lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this.

IPv6 – Google<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPhZzHk_3PAhVpqFQKHS95BKgQFgg3MAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fipv6%2Fstatistics.html&usg=AFQjCNF9akCtvOxGx3DO8AXKb1ibt3R4Jg>

For example.

It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an argument from what she has provided.

So, the presentation you and Honest use to “prove” your point is orthogonal to your point. That’s Andrew’s point.
I’ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is accelerating since depletion.

Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption or not and get back to the real business at hand… Getting IPv6 deployed before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning left?


Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>

Omo Oaiya
CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224
Skype: kodion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161028/e158792f/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list