[AFRINIC-rpd] Re: PDP discussions

[John Hay]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:01:13PM +0300, Maina Noah wrote:
> On 27 June 2013 22:12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Of course, that demand cannot and will not be met with IPv4. Nonetheless,
> > I think that 5 is not an unreasonable minimum multiplier within the
> > probably 3-5 year remaining lifespan of IPv4.
> >
> > In developed Worlds yes, but in the entire african continent were most
> economies are still developing, your assumption is unrealistic. Max 3 for
> those from wealthier families but majority students are private who
> prioritize schoolfees and the little remaining balance for a laptop and
> probably a smart mobile phone that can connect to a typical wifi network.
> 
> The above is the true fact in our world.

But surely we want the IT people to be able to build a network that is
usable in the future and not the past? Some years ago nobody had notebooks
or smart phones but as more people in the developed countries bought them,
the prices went down and now more and more people in the developing
countries are also having them. A policy should also try to be useful for
future years and not to document the past I think?

But in anycase IPv4 is legacy. :-) At the moment too many IT people in
Africa think that there is enough IPv4 space in Africa, so they can sit
back and do nothing about IPv6. But they do not understand, it is not
about the address space your own company / institution have, it is about
what address space the other company / institution have that your users
want to contact. If your users cannot contact them because you only have
IPv4, they will be angry at you.

I do support the policy because I think NAT is bad and user's devices
should have valid IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. I doubt if this policy will
result in AfriNIC running out of IPv4 addresses before they are useless.

John
-- 
John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at FreeBSD.org