Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Tue Nov 8 20:20:13 UTC 2016
As a matter of interest, I was running some numbers on what the policy IPv4 Soft Landing-BIS would mean financially to providers who actually needed space to connect customers.
This is specific to phase 2 and looks entirely at allocation costs based on the current fee structure.
Since applications will have to be a single /22 at a time, and each one will be subject to an allocation fee, the following would occur:
Size of Block
Effective Allocation Cost / IP
Additional base cost per Customer (/30)
Good luck to the ISP's in developing markets who want to get started and want to support corporates who want/need/demand live IP address space - because I predict they will be pretty damn uncompetitive when going up against multi-nationals who had space that was allocated before this policy and can afford to give the customers what they want without incurring large costs.
I can tell you now - there are corporates out there who will come to an ISP and ask for v4 AND v6, but they will want a /20, or a /19, with their link. It the ISP has to recover an additional $7000 or $14000 before they sell a damn thing to the customer, versus their competition that got the space first - guess what, they are going to lose the business.
Yes, it's easy for people who have huge amounts of space to support a policy allocated before this policy passed to support it - they won't take the hit. Yes, it's easy for people who ARENT in the ISP game to support this policy - they won't take the hit. But for the ISP's that actually have to bear these costs? This policy does nothing but hurt the industry and push up the cost to the end user, when Africa's costs of Internet are already some of the highest in the world.
Btw - just as a note - 3 years ago I did an IPv6 dual stack on a university campus in South Africa - did several presentations about it. Because of the way their network was structured before we re-architectured it, and to do true dual stack, we *required* a /15 worth of v4 space to re-do the network, and then add v6 on it. Today that university runs in excess of 60% of their total traffic on IPv6, but the v4 is still very much in use on the campus. Had they wanted to do the same exercise with this policy in place, it would never have happened, and they would not be running any v6. Why? Because there was no way in hell they would have paid $224,000 in addition to other costs.
So once again - I oppose this policy - for every reason I have stated time and again - and now based on these calculations which show that this policy just screws the newcomer, screws the consumer, and benefits the large players who already have space and established infrastructure.
From: Frank Habicht [mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz]
Sent: 08 November 2016 22:47
To: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
did I get this right?
I provided facts, and Noah provided:
- "not so fast"
- "I doubt"
- "I am sure"
should i also share my doubts?
On 11/8/2016 9:44 PM, Noah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2016 21:10, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz
> <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>> wrote:
>> We WOULD need to have. just few years later (sorry, details, whatever
>> number), IPv4 is going to end. it is not a question of _if_ but a
>> question of _when_.
> Not so fast.
> You forget that just like the IPv4 Internet, the IPv6 Internet will
> also sponteneously developed. Nothing happens over night to so many
> fundamental factors.
> Look at the history of Internet development across the world in each
> continent and what factors were at play per continent in fostering the
> The small group of Internet Elites here in tend to undermine a lot of
> this other factors.
>> And I think we all know examples of cases where people are unprepared
>> and will be surprised - no matter whether it happens sooner or later.
> I doubt any one will be suprised imho.
> We had satellite for ages then the fiber optic came. We all embraced
> to new advancement and upgraded quick yet satelites are still being
> used in remote rural towns where the cable is hardly there.
>> like this one:
>> % Information related to '2001:43f8:1d0::/48'
>> % No abuse contact registered for 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
>> inet6num: 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
>> netname: WACREN-v6
>> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1> show route table inet6.0 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
>> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1>
>> route-views6.routeviews.org <http://route-views6.routeviews.org>> sh
> bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
>> % Network not in table
>> route-views6.routeviews.org <http://route-views6.routeviews.org>>
>> sorry to bring facts into this discussion.
> I am sure wacren has their own reasons as to why some of that v6 is
> not lit.
> But lets not use that as the basis to prove a point.
> What is more important at least imho is the policies under discussion.
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD