[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Tue Apr 4 19:11:56 UTC 2017

I must agree with Andrew in this. I think that when the gauging of consensus is in the hands of just two people, having those people collaborate on the drafting of a policy for which they must then gauge consensus is an unacceptable conflict of interest.

For better or for worse, the existing proposals do not have consensus. It is unclear to me that any subset of either proposal actually has consensus, so if there is belief that there is a subset of them which has consensus, could we get a summary of what, exactly, that is perceived to be?

If there is to be a new draft which might achieve consensus, it must come from the community and not the co-chairs. If a draft comes from the co-chairs, then the only way to avoid a COI would be for them to recuse themselves from evaluating the consensus on that draft. Since it is unclear to me what mechanism would exist for gauging consensus if that were to occur, I think it is a very bad idea.

Owen

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 23:02, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:07 AM, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> There are multiple /32s, /24s, /28s, and lots in between. Many of those represent thousands (or millions) of /48s. In fact, each /24 represents 16.7 million /48s.
> 
> You’re just plain wrong in your argument and it’s so specious that it’s hard to tell whether this represents extreme ignorance or simply trolling.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I’m not sure how more telecoms upgrading their CGN makes the internet less IPv4, could you explain that one to me?
> 
> As to the last statement, so you keep claiming, but I know so many networks out there that are using their IPv6 space and the traffic stats as recorded by Google and Akamai provide a lot more support for that belief than your (as yet unsubstantiated) claims that nobody is using IPv6.
> 
>> The struggle is real…
> 
> What struggle is that? Don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice pithy line, but I’m just not sure what it’s supposed to mean in context.
> 
> The struggle to expand the implementation of IPv6?
> The struggle to try and remain in denial and pretend that IPv4 can be sustained for another 10 years?
> The struggle to try and convince those of us who know better to join in your sense of denial?
> 
> Some other struggle of which I am unaware?
> 
> Please clarify.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> Noah
>> 
>> 
>> On 3 Apr 2017 2:47 p.m., "Andrew Alston" <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
>> From: Noah <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> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170404/dafae149/attachment.html>