<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 October 2016 at 09:21, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>There are a number of flaws in your question, Omo.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>This is simply fact.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>English is not my native tongue but I understand obsolete to be different from deprecated </div><div><br></div><div>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 </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Deprecated</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>There are lots of obsolete things still in widespread use. Some countries still use paper airline tickets</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You use the word obsolete too loosely. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>.</div><div><br></div><div>I also don’t favor accelerated runout of IPv4 in the AfriNIC region or anywhere else.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Good. This is noted. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>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. </div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe in ARIN. In AFRINIC, we have a situation where;</div><div><br></div><div>- most of the numbers are in the hands of a minority</div><div>- where those transitioning to IPv6 will need some IPv4 so accommodation has to be made for latecomers</div><div>- a global situation where IPv4 still rules even though IPv6 uptake is now on the rise ....slowly</div><div>- a local situation where we need to innovate and work collectively to speed up IPv6 uptake</div><div><br></div><div>I work for NRENs and universities, most of whom predate and will outlive most other organizations so don't agree with you.<br></div><div><br></div><div> <snip></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I asked you to refute not necessarily agree. Do you have a view on the data that suggests different?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Now for some more substantive and targeted criticisms:</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a fact. Why is an explanation necessary?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>yes, that only a handful of countries globally have the IPv6 capabilities and usage the figures often touted would want us to believe.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>The talk speaks to the relationship of GDP and IPv6 deployment and says nothing about whether or not exhaustion will drive migration.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps the author didn't think he was qualified or had the expertise to make this judgement. Different in your case?</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Owen</div></font></span><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail-h5"><div>On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Omo Oaiya <<a href="mailto:Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net" target="_blank">Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-9141506487009145931Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail-h5"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com" target="_blank">honest1989@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>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 - <a href="http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/" target="_blank">http://slides.lacnic.net/lacni<wbr>c26/</a> - <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmy<wbr>gx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.p<wbr>ptx?dl=0</a></div></blockquote></div><br>Owen,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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? </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>-Omo</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail-m_-9141506487009145931gmail-m_2069156198917626563gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="http:/" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div><span class="gmail-">
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Community-Discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/community-<wbr>discuss</a><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Omo Oaiya<br>CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN <br>Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224<br>Skype: kodion<span></span><span></span><a href="http:///" target="_blank"></a><br><a href="http://www.wacren.net" target="_blank">http://www.wacren.net</a></div><div dir="ltr"> <div><br></div></div></div></div></div><a href="http:///" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>