[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy"now Available Online

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> We are all in the same boat headed for the goal of IPv6 deployment either way.
> 
> I think the point Andrew is trying to make is that we are NOT all in the same boat.  There are 5 different boats, some of which are moving much more quickly to the falls than others.  As a result, attempts to come up with pieces of paper that deny folks from trying to get onto the slower moving boats aren't likely to be effective and instead, will simply result in folks sneaking on board the slower boats.
> 
While I don't think the 5-boat analogy is particularly accurate, I will attempt to address it
for those that may perceive the situation as such.

Why is it better to allow them to overload and sink  the boat than to force them to resort
to sneaking on board in the hopes that fewer of them will do so and perhaps the boat
will not be overloaded to the point of sinking by the (hopefully) reduced rate of
boarding this might achieve?

>> The difference is that depleting AfriNIC prematurely by exporting
>> resources to other regions makes the transition that much harder in the
>> AfriNIC service region.
> 
> Sorry, how is transition made harder?
> 
If you don't think that a certain amount of IPv4 space is necessary to virtually any viable IPv6 transition strategy,
then, you aren't paying attention. If you do, the, you should readily recognize that a lack of IPv4 space with
which to deploy your transition strategy will present an additional challenge.

>> The other regions have relatively mature
>> IPv4 deployments compared to AfriNIC (with the possible exception
>> of LACNIC and some isolated parts of APNIC).
> 
> Right, and this means there is a larger installed base that will need to be migrated/NAT'd/forklift upgraded.  An analogy could be made to the deployment of cellular phone systems to gain universal coverage, skipping over the need to deploy of vast numbers of land lines to reach the same number of people.
> 
I think that is a poor analogy for a number of reasons. First, I think that much of the content consumed
within the AfriNIC service region is not hosted within the region. As such, the assumption that
Africa can assume that content is migrated to IPv6 and roll out their residential subscribers on
IPv6 only is rather absurd. Second, much of the content within the AfriNIC service region is intended
for external consumption such as tourists and attempts to attract other international business.
Assuming that making this content available on IPv6 only would not detract from that goal is
similarly absurd.

> Regards,
> -drc

Owen