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

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

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Tue Jun 21 09:19:13 UTC 2016

Hi Kris, Andrew,
At 18:31 20-06-2016, 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 free?
>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?


>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 
 What do you mean I have to pay for 
>resources I don't want in order to get the resources I want?

I agree that pushing IPv6 resources to LIRs and 
End-Users which have not requested those 
resources will not get IPv6 deployed on those 
networks.  It is better to review the existing 
strategy if it has accomplished nothing.  I don't 
think that changing the "give away" to a /52 or 
/56 is a good idea as it would be similar to applying an IPv4 approach to IPv6.

At 23:45 20-06-2016, Andrew Alston wrote:
>Ok, as another (only slightly tongue in cheek 
>idea) let's increase the fees for v4 by 100 
>percentage and if someone can concretely 
>demonstrate v6 deployment (beyond just the core 
>and a website, actually to the end users!) they get a 50 percent discount.
>Yes I know fees are not the domain of the RPD 
>list, but the idea may get people thinking along 
>further tracks, because effectively this 
>properly incentives v6 deployment rather than 
>just forcing people to have space they may never 
>use as is the case in the proposals I have seen up till now.

Afrinic Ltd will have to review its pricing 
structure at some point.  The deployment discount 
is an interesting idea.  There is the matter of 
survivability in the long run.  Is there anything 
which could be done during the IPv4 soft-landing phase for the long run?

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the RPD mailing list