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

Tue Jun 21 15:35:53 UTC 2016

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 07:50 , Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Little mystery, really… Most of it is going unused. A few universities and providers are doing some with IPv6, but for the most part it is still being ignored.

> 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 ?

Well, let’s clarify something… There are three different ways we’ve talked about giving IPv6 away.

1.	You must take this free IPv6 in order to get more IPv4.
2.	Here’s your IPv4, by the way, would you also like some free IPv6 to go with that? (current practice)
3.	If you ask for IPv6, we’ll give it to you for free.

If we’re going to do anything for free, I would advocate that approach 3 is correct and that approaches 1 and 2 may make some statistics look good to some viewers, but in reality all they do is make the statistics artificial and useless.

> 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. 

Since I think that approaches 1 and 2 are fundamentally flawed, I don’t think it matters what size we use with these two fundamentally flawed approaches. Making the size of block smaller won’t improve things, it will just confuse them further. Instead, I think we should shift to approach number 3 and provide whatever size block is appropriate to the requestor. The last thing we want to do here is create a financial incentive to use a smaller IPv6 allocation/assignment than is actually needed. That’s completely counter-productive.

> 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. 

Agreed.

> 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. 

That is why I proposed concrete milestones of IPv6 deployment to allow networks to obtain additional IPv4.

> 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.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing we want to avoid. While it sounds good from a more typical marketing perspective, the reality is that we do not want to create incentives for ISPs to undersize assignments to end users. We should be encouraging ISPs to give /48s to all customer end-sites regardless of size rather than encouraging them to do silly things like residential /56s, /60s, or worst of all, /64s.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:07 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160621/8d99afa2/attachment.html>