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

[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016

Nishal Goburdhan nishal at
Sat Jun 18 00:23:40 UTC 2016

On 17 Jun 2016, at 15:30, ALAIN AINA wrote:

> 1- Lets adopt the Soft landing proposal which imposes IPv6 
> ressources(PA or PI) before IPv4 allocation.
> It will stop people for getting IPv4 without requesting IPV6. It also 
> make members/users work on IPv6 plans to convince their parent LIRs or 
> to meet the  assignment and allocation criteria specified in the 
> policies*

i can’t support this part.

it is not afrinic’s responsibility to tell networks how they should be 
running.  while we all, unequivocally, support networks adopting IPv6, 
it’s not afrinic (nor our) business to *force* someone to request 
resources, simply because we think it’s a good idea.  especially if 
there is no guarantee, nor indication, that this will actually be used.

we *already* have good evidence - from afrinic - to show, that simply 
allocating/assigning IPv6 resources, is not the same, as networks 
actually using it.  at which point the allocation is largely worthless, 
and the resource (and effort spent in allocation) is effectively wasted. 
  the afrinic AIRRS report, which i’m sure you’re familiar with :-)  
  shows clearly that whilst the hostmasters are indeed allocating v6, 
not much of that is actually being routed (forget being actually used!). 
  it’s no stretch to infer, that enforcing IPv6 allocations, is not 
really going to do anything to improve IPv6 adoption, but simply add to 
some politically correct statistics about allocations..

it could be argued that this would make future allocations/assignments 
easier;  i think that the afrinic hostmasters would answer “not 
really” since their criteria for IPv6 allocations are, well .. 
considerably easier to meet, than for ipv4.

additionally, at some point, afrinic *will* start charging for ipv6.  
(or, the services related to that - read it however you will).  at that 
point, afrinic is going to be potentially charging real money to some 
organisation, for something that the organisation had not wanted, but 
that they had been *forced* to request.  IANAL, but that’s a potential 
liability issue that afrinic would do well to steer away from.

natural selection will see to those networks that won’t adopt v6..

> 2- Lets adopt the Audit/review policy to  describe how AFRINIC shall 
> proceed with auditing members ressources utilisation(IPv6 in this 
> case) and tell compliance level and issues/reasons of non-deployment 
> of IPv6.

to the best of my knowledge, afrinic hasn’t rescinded any ipv6 
allocations/assignments to members in good standing.  this, even though, 
the policy criteria for allocation/assignment says that the allocation 
should be routed within a year.  while those members are in good 
standing, i don’t support afrinic reclaiming those v6 resources (and 
neither do i feel i have the energy to submit a policy change for this 
;-))  because i can’t see that reclamation process, improving v6 
we should be doing all that’s possible to make it *easier* to use IPv6 
(we all agree on this i am sure!)
so, if i was going to suggest burning afrinic’s time, i would say, do 
things like:
* make the initial (default) allocation to eligible members, an 
“auto-allocate” process inside  (akin to what apnic 
* improve the integration in getting ipv6 routed;  a simpler, easier to 
use irrd front-end ;-)
[..and a few others suggestions that aren’t really RPD related, so 
probably better not discussed here..]

so, if you’re suggesting a policy, to have afrinic go back and audit 
and reclaim those allocated, but not yet routed v6 resources, i can’t 
really support that either.  i think, yes, we’re going to get to a 
point where we *will* want afrinic to do these sorts of audits;  but 
now, while there’s *some* interest to request these resources, we 
shouldn’t be overly harsh with requestors.

there’s a subtle difference in these two sections;  i’m all for 
giving requestors the v6 resources that they are *ASKING* for, and, 
being lenient in these still early (to some) days of ipv6 adoption.
i’m very opposed to *FORCING* requestors, into something that they do 
not want (even if it might be for their benefit).

> 3- Lets request AFRINIC R&D team to do an IPV6 readiness analysis per 
> member:
> - IPv6 allocation/assignments in Whois
> - Route6 objects in the IRR
> - Routing policy in the IRR
> - IPv6 prefixes in the routing table
> - sub-domains delegation
> - DNS over IPv6
> - Org web site over IPv6
> - Etc…
> And rank members based on their IPv6 readiness. It will tell where we 
> are and may help folks making decisions.
> Does it sound like a good plan ?

i’m unclear about what you mean here?  are you suggesting a policy 
proposal to do this (since this is RPD)?  or some other initiative (in 
which case, let’s continue this on comm*-discuss?).  fwiw, i would 
support some initiative to do this (a la NCC’s RIPE-NESS from a while 
back), and possibly even volunteer some time.  i don’t think that 
should be a *policy* though.


More information about the RPD mailing list