[rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Nishal Goburdhan <ndg at ieee.org> wrote:

>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 6:29 PM, Noah Maina <mainanoa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +++ to Policy then, lets draft it :-)
>
> to paraphrase a wise soul who came to the microphone during the academic
> policy discussion last thursday:  "...don't try to use policy to fix an
> operational issue..."
> (my words, not his).  it seemed, at the time, that people generally agreed
> with that sentiment.  this idea strikes me as no different.
>

I also agree that setting policy on IP resource is not the absolute answer,
how about combining setting policies at the national telco regulator end;
There is need to bring those regulators to the table to draft policies that
will encourage first more native v4 consumption in our region and
ultimately improve v6 deployment. Every regulator nowadays sing the
cybersecurity song and so preaching the need to go native on IP resource as
a way of combating cybercrime should be a good tune to dance to.

>
> those who see the need for IPv6, will deploy it.  AfriNIC is trying to
> spread the word;  let them continue their good work.
>

Sure they should but i think it should go beyond training, there is need to
be more strategic by getting the regulator's attention. The ISPs are not
looking to move and they need to be moved somehow....end users are at the
receiving end here.


> as for the NAT'ters as such...to paraphrase another wise soul:  "i
> encourage all my competitors to run their businesses that way"
>

We were both in Djibouti and i wonder who the competitor is in that
country? Also in my country where there is competition, all telco are on
NAT and so long as it works no other telco wants to go v4 native.
Competition areas is just based on whose service and pricing is better. So
whats the incentive that will make them go v6?

using policy, in the loose manner you describe, is not likely to generate
> the result you want.  others have already explained this before.
>
> I agree; the usage needs to stop being loose but more targeted. I am sure
its not news to you that Africa is currently becoming a dumping ground for
v4 only equipments, and when they dump those equipments, they follow it up
with CGN equipments and trainings (we got a brief of that at AIS). The
continent has over 1billion users yet to be reached and i fear that the
culture will continue if something drastic is not done!

ISP in our region need to stop applying for public IP addresses just
because they have setup a new hub, it should rather be because their
customer number is increasing. If end-users receive native v4 addresses,
then it will take less energy to get ISP to go v6.

Perhaps one of the reason why ISPs don't assign public IPs to their users
is due to the documentation required by RIR from LIR, if it is then there
has to be a way to strike a balance.

Cheers!

> --n.
>
> btw, some bits here are seriously OT.  the generic IPv6 discussion list is
> here:
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss_______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140613/7a479375/attachment.html>