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

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

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Mon Aug 22 08:25:59 UTC 2016


There are a number of things to consider here.

Firstly, it is impossible to deploy IPv6 in isolation of IPv4 at the moment.  Yes, v6 must be deployed, but it cannot be done without deploying v4 alongside it which requires v4 addressing.  That’s a hard fact.  Yes, NAT64 exists, however, there are FAR too many devices in consumer homes and businesses that do not support v6 for this to be a perfect solution.  Yes, you could to 464XLAT but this is challenging and has its own problems.

Secondly, do not kid yourself that people are going to rollout IPv6 and everything is just going to work on day one, particularly when you try and take it to the client edge.  It does not detract from the need for it to be done, but it is NOT going to happen overnight.

To give you some indications, we’ve deployed IPv6 to our end user consumer segment in the last 2 weeks in Kenya.  We’re the first African ISP I know of that has actually achieved this, and I can talk to some of the experiences we’ve had as a result.

Firstly, the CPE support for IPv6 is a mess – the way V6 CPE’s handle WAN addressing vs DHCPv6-PD for LAN addressing etc, varies rather widely and it was an immense exercise to find a configuration which worked in a pretty uniform way across most of the CPE’s.

Once we’d sorted that out, for standard PPPoE clients connected via Metro intrastructure, it was on to looking at things like GPON deployment.  Now, keep in mind that in most GPON deployments, OLT’s and ONT’s are tied together.  You can’t simply replace your OLT’s and ONT’s to get v6, not without MASSIVE expense.  At this point, welcome to the fight with the vendors to actually get ONT compatibility with v6 if the deployed ONT’s don’t already support it.  That was a very very very tough job.

So what I am saying is, you can have no less focus on v4 than before, it’s still critical, it’s still necessary, it cannot be avoided.  Let’s get that out of our heads once and for all and accept that fact.  Yes, we want v6, yes, we need v6, and without v6 going forward we are going to be screwed, but it does not diminish the need for v4 in the slightest at this point in time.


From: Ojikah Celestine [mailto:celestineojikah at]
Sent: 22 August 2016 10:04
To: rpd at
Cc: rpd List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016

AFRINIC may not wade the big stick on v6 adoption but it is imperative that we don't just focus on the short term gains alone by still demanding v4 addresses, as such LIR's and major operators should begin v6 adoption and focus less on v4 for the medium to long term gain and for the overall best interest of the African community.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:41 PM, Mukom Akong T. <mukom.tamon at<mailto:mukom.tamon at>> wrote:

On 21 June 2016 at 14:21, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at<mailto:Omo.Oaiya at>> wrote:

It is not easy but there are regional associations of telecom regulators we could work with to make it less painful.  The AFGWG and IPv6 councils in many African countries who would also benefit from a collaborative approach.  The regional RENs are exploring ways in which NRENs and their communities play a role in this and support in-country.  Ideas welcome.

Again if you are a regulator and want help setting up and running an effective IPv6 task force, get in touch.


Mukom Akong T.

LinkedIn:Mukom<>  |  twitter: @perfexcellent
“When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran


RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list