[AfriNIC-rpd] Do we push for more V4 or advocate dual stack ??

Wed Sep 5 09:25:02 UTC 2007

Yes, some people is still trying to extend the IPv4 addressing by using 240.
Also some policy proposals try to extend the "life" of existing IPv4 space,
based in a supposed "fairness" situation, but fairness is a non-sense
concept in a moving technology. Fair today is unfair tomorrow, and
viceversa, so a total non-sense.

And sorry to contradict, but yes, with NAT you can do one-size-fits-all, not
optimal, but it works, expensive, but that's good because incentive IPv6
adoption. It is just a matter of being smart.

We just need to realize something: If we don't deploy IPv6 in our networks,
the users are going to use it by means of automatic transition mechanisms
such as Teredo and 6to4. Then we lost control of our networks and others
will be doing the business. So we lost possible benefits of new value added
services and applications. Is this what we want ?

My sincere opinion: Let's be smart and invest the efforts in moving to IPv6
instead in discussing about policies that will only be against ourselves.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Frank <frank at afrinic.net>
> Organización: AfriNIC Ltd.
> Responder a: <frank at afrinic.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:30:08 +0200
> Para: 'AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List' <rpd at afrinic.net>
> CC: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Asunto: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Do we push for more V4 or advocate dual stack ??
> 
> Jordi, 
> 
>> One fundamental mistake, I already indicated several times.
>> For running dual-stack, you don't need public IPv4 addresses.
>> 
>> As a consequence of that, in my opinion is a mistake to
>> invest efforts in looking for "expanding" the IPv4 addressing
>> space, or making policies that never are going to be fair in
>> between different regions and could create kind of "policy
>> wars". The effort is worth to be used in implementing IPv6 instead.
> 
> I don¹t think anyone is talking about expanding the IPv4 address space.
> What policies are addressed towards is having sufficient IPv4 address space
> to allocate to operators well after the central pool exhaust date.
> 
> Networks are still growing. NAT is not going to be a one size fits all
> solution 
> and demand for v4 space will still be there. It will take time for operators
> 
> to switch over to ipv6 that much is a given and during that transitional
> period 
> operators will base their network growth on v4 even as they transition to v6
> with 
> dual stack implementations (as probably the simplest route).
> 
> So concern over how to manage v4 resources in the central pool is valid and
> all those policies are relevant.
> 
> But maybe I am wrong. It would be good to hear what all sorts of operators
> have to say 
> about this.      
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Frank.
> 
>> 
>> Regarding the 2nd hand equipment. If you have equipment that
>> don't run IPv6, it should be so old (more than 5-6 years)
>> that it is not reliable. I really thing that's a mistake in
>> any network, as you can't provide a good service, so
>> customers are unsatisfied and will move sooner or later to
>> other providers.
>> 
>> Moreover, those 2nd hand routers are also incapable, for
>> example, of using 224/8, which is one of the possible
>> alternatives to "extend" IPv4 lifetime, so it is not going to
>> be useful.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> De: Frank <frank at afrinic.net>
>>> Organización: AfriNIC Ltd.
>>> Responder a: <frank at afrinic.net>, AfriNIC Resource Policy
>> Discussion 
>>> List <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> Fecha: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:23:50 +0200
>>> Para: 'AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List' <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> Asunto: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Do we push for more V4 or
>> advocate dual stack ??
>>> 
>>> Speaking here in a personal capacity about this earlier thread and
>>> with regards to the related thread on Central Pool IPv4 Exhaustion.
>>> 
>>> First of all, its not really an either/or issue (about the
>> question of 
>>> do we push for more v4 or advocate dial stack). I think its pretty
>>> clear as has been said earlier that they both go hand in hand.
>>> 
>>> Regarding IPv6 transition, I agree with those who say that
>> it needs to 
>>> be emphasized that the African region needs to start off running on
>>> this and not sleepwalking. Coming off of a tiny base of global
>>> internet usage (1% or 2% is much closer to 0% than it is to 5%) I
>>> thoroughly agree that there is very little to lose in starting the
>>> transition soon.  Starting off a lot closer to the cutting-edge of
>>> technology than being many years behind has clear benefits
>> in seizing 
>>> the initiative, in saving on long-term costs, in capitalizing on
>>> technology applications and in general on being more
>> actively engaged in latest networking standards.
>>> 
>>> Now while ideals are great we need to see how we can make this a
>>> reality and in doing so I think we need to explore ipv6
>> transitioning 
>>> from the standpoint of what it means for different categories of
>>> operators in the African region and not just generalize
>> across the board.
>>> 
>>> For example, its worth saying that while many operators depend on
>>> second-hand equipment many others do not. A huge bulk of the v4
>>> address space is held by operators who have big enough budgets to
>>> deploy newer equipment. So lets find out how much space is held by
>>> these operators, how many operators fall in this category and what
>>> their ipv6 transition plans are.
>>> 
>>> Now about the smaller operators certainly there should be concern
>>> about costs and second-hand equipment but lets see what the options
>>> are for them for making a timely transition and not assume that the
>>> only way is by depending on using discarded v4-only networking
>>> equipment from operators elswhere.
>>> 
>>> I guess its evident that we need to hear from all types of
>> operators 
>>> on this issue. It would be nice to hear from more operators in
>>> discussions on this mailing list and at AfriNIC meetings on ipv6
>>> transition costs/plans. It would be great if operators can prepare
>>> presentations on what their ipv6 transition plans are and share it
>>> here, at AfriNIC-7,8,9,10 and with the larger community.
>>> 
>>> I think having more information on what IPv6 transition
>> means for all 
>>> types of African operators helps in designing policy, conducting
>>> training, and raising awareness to serve the needs in our region.
>>> 
>>> About v4 central pool exhaustion, as has been said by
>> several experts 
>>> here, pushing for more v4 is clearly a necessity given that
>> networks 
>>> are still growing and will be using v4 in dual-stack mode for many
>>> years well after the central pool has been exhausted. So every
>>> registry has an interest in getting as much of it as
>> possible and AfriNIC is no exception.
>>> 
>>> Now in terms of policy, the one suggesting splitting  25
>> /8s equally 
>>> across RIRs has a case in that African operators in general are
>>> starting off 10-15 years behind the advanced world such
>> that the needs 
>>> of this region *in
>>> general* are much more fundamental. At the same time, the advanced
>>> regions are seeing a lot of growth in their networks with all the
>>> deployment of VOIP, 3G mobile devices, consumer broadband
>> applications and what not.
>>> 
>>> So with constesting demand for v4 consumption in the short
>> term across 
>>> all regions, JPNIC's policy proposal of waiting until there are 5
>>> remaining /8s in the central pool makes a lot of sense. But it
>>> fundamentally does not give the late starting regions (i.e.
>> Africa and  
>>> Latin America) of the world the benefit of the doubt as
>> they grow their networks in the years ahead.
>>> 
>>> A good and fair policy should provide AfriNIC with extra /8
>> blocks to 
>>> last this region for a grace period of 5 years after the
>> central pool 
>>> exhaustion date so that operators can ramp up their
>> networks to levels
>>> operators in other regions got to years ago while being able to
>>> operate in a dual stack
>>> ipv6 transition environment.
>>> 
>>> So  maybe 3 /8s for AfriNIC, 2 /8s for LACNIC and 1 /8 for
>> the other 3 
>>> more advanced regions could work better when the pool gets
>> to 8 /8s remaining.
>>> The policy could even provide for a return of completely unused /8
>>> blocks after that specified post-exhaust grace period expires.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Frank
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net
>>>> [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Badru Ntege
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 07:00 AM
>>>> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es; 'AfriNIC Resource Policy
>> Discussion 
>>>> List'
>>>> Subject: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Do we push for more V4 or advocate dual
>>>> stack ??
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> The IP divide will happen if Africa doesn't move to IPv6
>> *NOW* not 
>>>>> because we run out of IPv4 or anything like that. As said before,
>>>>> trying to increase the availability of IPv4 is artificial and NOT
>>>>> HELPFUL AT ALL !
>>>>> 
>>>>> Developing regions have even more reasons to move to IPv6
>>>> faster, and
>>>>> to allow the innovation in the regions to happen *before*
>> developed 
>>>>> regions, increasing the competition opportunities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Developing applications with IPv6 is far more easier than
>> with IPv4 
>>>>> and this provides a path for African people to do business
>>>> while the
>>>>> rest of the world is still spending tons of dollars/euros in
>>>>> developing less advanced applications that traverse NATs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And by the way, I still haven't seen a single network
>> where IPv6 is 
>>>>> not supported. There is always a good walk around for every
>>>> network case.
>>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Jordi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> [Badru Ntege]
>>>> 
>>>>  It has been argued in other discussion forums that instead of
>>>> pushing for extending the life of V4 regions like ours should
>>>> concentrate more on finding means of providing affordable dual
>>>> stacked networks thus getting us on the right platform but also
>>>> enabling us to communicate with the rest of the world who are
>>>> currently heavily running what is soon to become legacy V4
>> networks.
>>>> 
>>>> One could somehow see a parallel with Africa's adoption of the GSM
>>>> technology while other parts of the world were still
>> running analogue
>>>> networks.  The question being how far does this parallel
>> go ??  Does 
>>>> it hold any water ??  is this our opportunity to leapfrog ??
>>>> 
>>>> In a way I would like to hear from some of those on this
>> list with V6 
>>>> allocations.
>>>> 
>>>> I do believe this is very important debate for the future
>> sustainable 
>>>> growth of Africa's internet and we should try our best not
>> to get it 
>>>> wrong this time.
>>>> 
>>>> badru
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rpd mailing list
>>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>> 
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
>> for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not
>> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information,
>> including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.