[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

[Andrew Alston]

Noah,

If you want to make a judgement like this – please – do me a favour and take the number of originating ASN’s v4 vs v6… it will give you far more accurate information

Andrew


From: Noah [mailto:noah at neo.co.tz]
Sent: 03 April 2017 15:08
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>; Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Andrew,

Andrew, i could say the same for a single /11 or 12 or /14 with a lot of /24 each.

Call it a falicy, misleading or whatever, but my argument stands based on the IPv4 FIB vs the IPv6 FIB as of today.

So as far as am concerned, I only see over 40k IPv6 prefixes and assuming this are some /32 or /48, then only a handful of companies are announcing their IPv6 prefixes out of over a billion networks on the internet.

The Internet is still IPv4 unless more and more Telecoms upgrade their CGN. And I know of so many networks out there that have IPv6 space but are seated on it and not even announcing as they are confirtable with IPv4.

The struggle is real...

Noah


On 3 Apr 2017 2:47 p.m., "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
Noah - that argument is a falicy - companies typically announce 1 or 2 v6 prefixes as compared to 10s or 100s of v4 prefixes because the size of a single /32 is so huge and can be subnetted so deeply so there aren't thousands of smaller blocks floating around.

The argument you make therefore is completely misleading and a misnomer

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 2:41:45 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: rpd List

Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

On 3 Apr 2017 12:55 a.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

I am not calling for softening and depleting IPv4 at this stage, but I don’t see any advantage to tightening it, either.

The last i checked, the IPv4 FIB is handling over 600k aggregate prefixes vs IPv6 FIB that stands at close to only 40k aggregate prefixes a compeling fact that the internet is still largely dependent on IPv4 today.

Very few IPv6 only green fields to say the least.



In fact, I would argue that by insisting on holding resources in the free pool for “possible future newcomers” you are, in effect, assigning them to organizations without any current proof of physical infrastructure in the AfriNIC service region to the disadvantage of organizations that do currently have proof of infrastructure and a documented need for the addresses within the region today.

IMHO, your premise is flawed, in my experience (having worked for 3 SP startups and still do),  because we were all startups at some point when we involved ourselves in the business of connecting folk to the internet and every iron that we fired up then and today needed and still needs at the very least an IPv4 address to connect to the internet.

In anycase, IPv6 internet is still developing sponteneously at almost 40k prefixes announced with a few case studies around the US, Europe, Asian and some parts of Africa and South America and could take another decade as long as telecoms  around the world still run CGN's.

IMHO market forces and tech-dynamics (IoT) will push for IPv6 adoption and until then, the over a decade aggressive invetments in IPv4 internet will still stand even though most equipment and software today pretty much supports IPv6.

Noah




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170403/80bf9543/attachment-0001.html>