Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016
aalain at trstech.net
Sat Jun 18 14:20:10 UTC 2016
> On Jun 18, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> On 18/Jun/16 13:26, Danny wrote:
>> Hello Nishal,
>> I don't support either your comment/suggestions.
>> One question: How are we going to increase use of IPv6 in our region
>> if we do not strengthen our policies about ipv6 adoption?
>> "Don't tell me how to run my network " routhly said. I personally
>> don't support and don't like this answer.
> AFRINIC cannot make operators do what they don't want to do.
> If an operator is unwilling to deploy IPv6, even though they've been
> issued an IPv6 allocation by AFRINIC, AFRINIC cannot do much about that.
Agree. AFRNIC shall understand why they are not willing to deploy the allocated IPv6 and the community shall act as appropriate.
> There has always been independence between the RIR operations and the
> LIR operations. This is unlikely to change.
Agree. But they purse the same objective of Internet Development and work together. The RIR in Number ressources management /distribution and LIRs in their utilisation.There is an intersection point.
> The AFRINIC membership could draft policies that "encourage" IPv6
> deployment, but ultimately, your network, your rules.
That is exactly what we are doing. Update the soft landing policy to meet the goal of using the 102/8 to encourage IPv6 deployment.
No space allocation from the last /8 if you can’t show IPv6.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD