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

[Kris Seeburn]

OK let me put it in simple terms of what i still wish people would do.

The first is i do understand that we have loads of v6 to be allocated

Where is the v6 being used? Still much of the mystery on our continent.

As the board had decided in the past to give away some freebies to encourage the usage of v6. I am yet convinced so far anything much is happening. So - I come to the analogy of, if i have loads of freebies and initially giving away as a promotion and yet being still trashed away … why do i still need to give so much away still ?

I am tempted to say and that’s where i am coming from, so if you do not need v6 ok fine, but i still give you a very least chunk and use it if you want and if not trash it as usual but at least that does not mean i have given you a bigger block. It will over time become useful but not readily yet. So no issues i know where you are coming from but i still feel that the free give away may need to be revisited going forward.

If it is used then we can probably apply some thinking about discounting but i still feel that just giving away v6 always for free and then people fighting over apply use or enforce is not getting us anywhere close to anything.

I am in agreement with the v4 space pool we have is quite a pool we need to use but pushing v6 is on the notes of people and i sincerely want people to at least use it rather than have for free use and just dump it somewhere because hey i got it for free what do i do with it now. So am still not bothered on the allocation size but so many of blocks allocated being useless does not help me think right.

But i understand your point and no for or against point. In hindsight i give you less because you get it free but if you use it want more pay for it.



> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:07 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Kris Seeburn wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm not sure that I full understand what you mean. However, it sounds like you might not realize how much IPv6 space there is. Each RIR has been allocated a /12 and qualifies for an additional /12 when it has used (allocated and/or reserved) half of that space. That's 524,288 minimum allocations or at least tens of thousands of more generous allocations.
> 
> But the /12 from which AFRINIC allocates comes from 2000::/3, which contains 512 /12s, of which just six have been allocated or otherwise used. That means there's enough space to support each RIR getting a /12 a year for a century, should that be necessary.
> 
> Given the vastness of the IPv6 address space, I do not understand what your objective is when you discuss the possibility of allocating less space to some groups. I can see the value in not registering an IPv6 allocation to a network operator who does not want one. But what advantage does anyone get from having the size of their IPv6 allocation restrained when there is so much IPv6 space available?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo Vegoda

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160621/86b1c428/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160621/86b1c428/attachment.sig>