Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016
dewole at forum.org.ng
Tue Jun 21 08:17:19 UTC 2016
[speaking in personal capacity]
Just a reminder that changing AFRINIC's IPv6 allocation to a slow-start
model may lead to unnecessarily bloated global routing tables (which
seems to be one of the lessons we have learnt from IPv4).
On 6/21/2016 2:31 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> So i just want to push another thought in this pool of ideas going
> around. I wanted us all to think :
> * One i agree that afrinic cannot and should not impose IPv6 as much
> as it concerns the major LIRs which to me is quite understandable
> at this stage and am again 50/50 on this. It is like ok giving
> some v6 resources away which is not being used majorly either
> since the concentration is still with the v4 space. Fair enough,
> Afrinic in the past had decided to give v6 resources for free to
> help in its growth. So nothing much is happening so far. So am i
> picking suggestions that we should not give v6 resources away for
> o The other thinking i am having is ok fine perhaps the minimal
> v6 allocation that comes with the v4 resources is too much
> anyways - perhaps a very least minimal give away should be /52
> or /56 on a general approach for organisations to look at it
> and perhaps then come back and ask for bigger blocks that can
> be charged?
> o On a different scale as far as Academia/Research is concerned
> perhaps we should take a different approach with them. Since
> they are kind of key to research we can take it that v4
> resources and v6 resources should be allocated differently and
> dual stacking be requested as part of allocation. People do
> not get me wrong here. This is the very start of teaching and
> research which may require further in depth thinking and these
> institutions as much as paying 50% in general terms should be
> able to nurture the future of v6 as well. I know in general
> Academia does not want to be touched and compared differently
> we need to also see the real essence of facts.
> Bottomline what is important is also survival of the businesses as
> much as survival of Afrinic as well. Great policies great but i feel
> personally that everything needs to be weighted as well to ensure
> sustained growth in all parts of the organisations in general.
> My personal take is really no imposed approach perhaps a very limited
> v6 allocation in general to any new comer but when they need the v6
> resources come back to get them if you need them.
> Academia/Research v4 and v6 allocation goes hand in hand however v6
> resources may need to be dual stacked with your v4 space and should be
> in use at least to some extent perhaps 30-40% usage needs to happen
> else i find it again useless to allocate v6 again if not used. To me
> it means “yes we have it but hey we not using it anyways”. No
> imposition but want some added thinking.
> I am sure this would generate some good and bad “for and against” but
> i need to be sure i am also thinking straight here to see how best we
> can use our resources properly and being used and not thrown in a just
> allocation box.
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 5:40 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
>> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 2016, at 04:26 , Danny <afahounko at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:afahounko at gmail.com>> 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 vision is "Be the leading force in growing the internet for
>>> Africa's sustainable development" and it is Afrinic duty to put all
>>> the necessary guidelines for the development of Internet in our region.
>>> Please we should not forget Afrinic mission in our region.
>>> And Afrinic has already started by trainings and capacity building.
>>> We need just to strengthen it and make the IPv6 a reality in our region.
>> The key you are missing is “leading”… Let’s look at what that word means.
>> A leader shows the way. A leader is in front giving an example and
>> encouraging others to follow that example.
>> If you are pushing someone, you cannot possibly be in front of them,
>> or, you are sending them in the wrong way.
>> Pushing IPv6 resources onto networks that do not want them will not
>> get IPv6 deployed. It is not leadership. It is pushing and it will
>> push people in the wrong direction. At best, it will accomplish
>> nothing. At worst, it will create resentments… “What do you mean I
>> have to pay for resources I don’t want in order to get the resources
>> I want?”
>> I admit that my proposal may risk some of those resentments as well,
>> but at least in the case of what I have proposed (and I’m not sure
>> this is a good idea, just an idea) I put forth concrete measurable
>> metrics for actual deployment and use of IPv6 rather than merely
>> here, you must take and pay for these resources whether you will use
>> them or not.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD