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

[rpd] Inbound Policy

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Mon Dec 12 23:11:41 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew,
At 12:05 12-12-2016, Andrew Alston wrote:
>Actually yes, I apologise.

Thank you for the answer.

>In my view, no, because with an inbound policy 
>IPv4 addresses are not "made readily available".
>Transfers on the secondary market are a 
>commercial transaction, they cost substantial 
>amounts of money, and currently prices for /16s 
>are running anywhere from $525k to $980k 
>dependent on the time and who you are 
>approaching. For an African entity to spend that 
>kind of money bringing in space “ believe me – 
>V6 is going to be their first option unless 
>theey really need the v4. We know that most the 
>AfriNIC members are small to medium members – 
>and to get the greatest V6 impact it is mass 
>deployyment by many members that needs to occur. 
>These members will not be using the inbound 
>policy – because of financial constraints, so I 
>don't see the inbound policy having any impact on V6 deployment.

Yes, most of the IPv4 allocations are small or 
medium.  There were 24 large allocations in 2015 
and 10 allocations in 2016.  The second market 
prices are of an order of magnitude more 
expensive than what the RIR is charging.  From 
what you wrote, IPv6 usage would be influenced by 
financial constraints instead of availability of more IPv4 addresses.

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the RPD mailing list