Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

Ademola Osindero ademola at
Fri Nov 25 13:23:59 UTC 2011

Pushing IPv6 - Should only be limited to user education and nothing more than that. When users and businesses choose to adopt it, they should do so at their own pace.

Ademola Osindero

CEO/Consulting Director
Lopworks Limited
29 Ago Palace Way,
Okota, Isolo,
Lagos, Nigeria

Mob: +234 805 809 7820
Tel: +234 1 877 5289, 1 811 2885
Email: ademola at

On 25 Nov 2011, at 11:08, gift at wrote:

> + I think IPV6 implementation is a business decision to address continuity
> and sustainability issues. Like any tecknological upgrade people catch up
> at the diffrent satages for different reasons. The KRA where Afrinic
> should not be found wanting is educationxxxx,awareness+++. If the
> legislation is done by the regulators then well and good. All we can do is
> lobby. How do we evaluate the effectiveness of our lobby and awareness
> campains other than through IPV6 uptake, bearing in mind there is always
> an incubation period for such processes.
> Rgds
> Gift
>> I agree with Owen, let's not give out v6 just for the sake of it.
>> There's a constituency that I think requires urgent attention, government.
>> With many governments rolling out e-government services, my thoughts are
>> that AfriNIC should come up with programs that target governments, one of
>> the biggest (potential) user of IP resources. This program should _mainly
>> target policy makers.
>> Regards,
>> Vincent Ngundi
>> Twitter: @VincentNgundi
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
>>>> After listening at AfriNIC-15 and what happens in LACNIC - would it
>>> make
>>>> sense to propose a policy that...
>>>> Purpose - to promote IPv6
>>>> In order for a resource member to get any new IPv4 resource - and they
>>>> have no IPv6 resource - they must apply for an IPv6 resource as well.
>>> Personally I don't think so. All it does is push people to request
>>> resources
>>> which they can then leave on the shelf. We want to drive actual IPv6
>>> deployment, not merely address consumption.
>>> In fact, I would say that driving address consumption without deployment
>>> is a net lose for the community.
>>>> If the resource member asks for any new IPv4 resource - and they have
>>>> any IPv6 resources older than four months of age - then the resource
>>>> member must show that any of their existing IPv6 resources are in use
>>>> either visible in the Routing Tables or the IPv6 resource must be
>>>> provably in use (reachable via another Member), which would exclude
>>>> anything in a testing environment.
>>> This takes a step towards pushing deployment, but, in fact, it's pretty
>>> easy to anchor a route at one of your edges and not actually deploy
>>> anything behind it.
>>> I think it's better to work on more meaningful deployment through
>>> outreach
>>> and encouragement rather than through policy. Policy initiatives tend to
>>> drive resistance and people tend to do the bare minimum necessary to
>>> work through or around the policy rather than look for ways to go beyond
>>> what the policy requires.
>>> Better would be to provide hall-of-fame style incentives for people to
>>> go as far as they can in IPv6 deployment. Something like the RIPEness
>>> program at RIPE NCC.
>>> Owen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list