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

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

Kofi ANSA AKUFO kofi.ansa at
Tue Jun 21 09:53:49 UTC 2016


Again from a different perspective we MUST NOT RELEGATE ENFORCEMENT of IPv6
deployment as an arbitrary option. We can develop as many policies as we
want but if those polices and associated RIR programs fail to push
implementation we will end up with a region in which resources are not

This applies to IPv4 as well. Now only about 36.5% of the allocated IPv4 is
actually being used now in our region and yet we are more concerned about
distribution and shortage.

Yes ... "A father whose kids are not attending school whilst he keeps
stacking money in the bank and investments with reasons for saving for the
kids' future" - that is the situation we have now.

Again do we have credible statistics of IPv6 depoyments of allocated IPv6

Do we have a follow up mechanism after IPv6 trainings by participants and
partners to encourage them to *deploy and run* IPv6 networks? There should
be different follow up mechanisms for different tiers.

*We can then prioritize and push deployment of IPv6 in the edge and access
network bands ... to me that is where we can reap the real value and
justification of IPv6 deployment . To have my phone, tablet, Desktop PC,
TV, alarm system etc on IPv6.*

*CHALLENGE To the Community and Capacity Building and Research departments
of RIR in our region: (Reply by Accepting or Denying to take on this
challenge - I am willing to help in my own small way and I believe other
technical colleagues in or region will share the same enthusiasm to

*Phase I:* Now it makes sense to push our tertiary and research
institutions to lead the IPv6 deployment campaign in our region.  Why? They
are the perfect playground and research environment. A typical premier
public university in our region has over 15000 students on the average. We
need to have a program to at least select one from our region to guide and
collaborate to deploy IPv6 campus wide, collect feedback and other metrics,
rinse, revise, and replicate deployments region wide.

*Phase II*: Selected major mobile telcos in  our region should be targets
to deploy IPv6 in their access networks as a pilot programs. With good
feedback and metrics and measurements in place to serve as blueprints and
feedback to vendors.

We need to see more agility especially from our NOGs and RIR *if they are
to stay relevant in the development of ICT infrastructure in our region.*
We could do more than vetting and managing distribution of IP resources and
cash flow.

Its about time we acknowledge we need *enforcing policies and associated
pilot programs* as credible and ultimate solutions to solve these problems.
Liberal policies will simply not work for our region. To be frank it has
never worked for other regions ... but rather their endowment of relatively
innovative major LIRs and academic research bodies to develop strategies,
easy yet variable deployment blueprints and feedback data gathering
mechanisms that is transparent to the average internet user in their



On 21 June 2016 at 12:24, Mark Elkins <mje at> wrote:

> Ouch Andrew...
> One though I had when reading Kris's email,
> AFRINIC currently gives a 50% fee reduction to Universities. They could
> probably link that discount to an expectation - that the University
> actually has IPv6, routes it and has contactable services dual-stacked
> with IPv4 address space belonging to the same University - otherwise no
> discount. Even if their country has poor IPv6 connectivity, a tunnel to
> HE could sort that out quite simply.
> No reason for local IXP's not to have IPv6 as well and if you are a
> University and there is no exchange point - create one - be a Leader.
> AFRINIC also has some sort of IPv6 tunnel broker.
> Maybe Liquid could do the same?
> Universities thus whilst not forced to run IPv6 (dual-stack), would find
> it financially prudent to do so. Are they not usually considered amongst
> the Leaders of development in a country?
> Like I said, just a thought.
> Mark @ Posix - who has been dual-sacked since February 2007, despite
> Telkom SA still not commercially providing me native IPv6 access.
> On 21/06/2016 08:45, 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.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS <>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:09 AM +0300, "Kris Seeburn"
> > <seeburn.k at <mailto:seeburn.k at>> wrote:
> >
> > Reply inline
> >
> >> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at
> >> <mailto:owen at>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 18:31 , Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at
> >>> <mailto:seeburn.k at>> 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?
> >>>       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?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please do not encourage this IPv4-thinking with IPv6. Every end site
> >> should get a /48. More if there’s some reason for it which I find
> >> somewhat unimaginable, but my imagination is admittedly limited.
> >>
> >> Stop scarcity-thinking and trying to conserve the wrong things in
> >> IPv6. There are PLENTY of /48s in the first /3. If I’m wrong to the
> >> extent that we finish off even this first /3 in 50 years, then by all
> >> means, I will help you write more restrictive policies for the
> >> remaining 6+ /3s.
> >
> > I am in full agreement with what you say here whether it is still shared
> > by all is a bit of a challenge. However much the v6 allocation being
> > made for free how much is being advertised and used? I’d like to know
> > that for real. The issue i also have is great loads to give away but
> > there is also costs to it right? Fine give away give away for free how
> > long do we sustain it. Afrinic does not have that many members as in
> > ARIN or RIPE either way. So really i wish i could see some real use of
> > v6. Allocating without use at the end user makes it dull for me. Then
> > what is the use. If you followed the threads you would see same
> > happening. Allocation and usage are two stories right now.
> >
> > However, i would still want to hear the miracle coming across soon :)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>       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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I admit I’m not sure I understand what exactly you are attempting to
> >> propose here.
> >
> >
> > What i was trying to say is we could reduce the allocation size for
> > organisation who do not use v6 and still give the wider chunk to
> > Academia and research and push that v6 allocated to academia who get 50%
> > discount anyways should heavily promote v6 as a result. The slashes may
> > need some revisiting but i’d me more tempted to give them a block that
> > they would use than give it to someone who does not want it anyways.
> >
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> That sounds great, but can you express it in concrete actions as I’m
> >> unsure how anyone goes about implementing it in policy or in actions
> >> on their own networks.
> >
> > Its not only about policy its also making sure Afrinic can really
> > sustain itself after softlanding as the figures will go up during the
> > softlanding as the other RIRs have experienced but at some point it will
> > just be recurrent revenue that will be straight line for a long time and
> > the need to ensure that revenue comes from the main business the need to
> > reflect properly on those is also important. The community has its views
> > and also to make sure the organisation sustains itself and lives or
> > outlives us.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Kris Seeburn
> > seeburn.k at <mailto:seeburn.k at>
> >
> >   *
> >
> > <
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at
> >
> >
> --
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> mje at       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list