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

[rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Fri Jun 13 10:37:16 UTC 2014

On Friday, June 13, 2014 09:54:29 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote:

> 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.

I strongly believe the market will sort itself out here.

When there is no more IPv4, ISP's that do not support IPv6 
will be staring their going concern in the face.

Yes, it's reactive, but history has shown that it is not 
easy to regulate (much less police) the Internet when it's 
not your money on the line.

> 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?

Their competitors doing so.

> 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!

Mobile carriers the world over still find NAT44 an easier 
solution than IPv6. It's a universal problem, and millions 
of $$ are being poured into vendors to continue to support 
NAT44 LSN's.

> 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.

But one thing leads to the other, and it's always better to 
be prepared.

I don't think the point is to abandon IPv4 (we have to keep 
it real). The point is to put IPv6 into all your plans just 
like you do IPv4. It might feel like double work, but you'll 
be happier you did it and forgot about it.

> If end-users receive native v4 addresses,
> then it will take less energy to get ISP to go v6.

We, for example, are putting pressure on all our customers 
to turn-up IPv6 across the interconnects with us (even if 
this could mean they may not be configuring other parts of 
their networks with IPv6 - but you have to start from 

In some cases, we are even helping customers apply for IPv6 
address space from AFRINIC in case they are not sure how to 
go about it.

Steps taken to increase IPv6 penetration may be 
unconventional (certainly for us), but one needs to consider 
all avenues to encourage uptake. We can't keep talking about 
it forever. And yes, it's a one-on-one exercise that is hard 
but required.

> 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.

It is easier to document IPv6 assignments because an IPv6 
subnet covers a much broader scope than an IPv4 one. So that 
is not even an issue.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list