<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Noah,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">What I was proposing below is *<b>VERY</b>* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis does.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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 implications.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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 *<b>accelerate</b>* v4 depletion
– not slowing it down.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">Noah <noah@neo.co.tz><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20<br>
<b>To: </b>Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p>On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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. <br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>+1 Andrew and I totally agree with you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><a href="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-bis</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Noah<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>