[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Jackson Muthili]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 22:45 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Frankly, IMHO, the preservation of IPv4 is strictly a way of inflicting
>>> additional cost and pain on the majority of the internet. Unfortunately,
>>> much like toxic polluters of the 70s and 80s, most of the cost and pain is
>>> inflicted on those who are ready for IPv6 rather than those who remain
>>> unprepared for that future. The good news is that if the current adoption
>>> rates continue, the holdouts that haven’t implemented IPv6 will become
>>> mostly irrelevant relatively soon and when the rest of us start turning off
>>> IPv4, they will be the ones left out in the cold wondering what happened
>>> instead of inflicting costs and pain on the rest of us.
>>>
>>> The sooner the internet moves on from its unhealthy IPv4 addiction the
>>> better. I’m pretty sure you know this as well as I do, despite all of your
>>> apparent protestations to the contrary.
>>
>> - Our region is still a young and growing region relative to yours.
>
> Like it or not, Jackson, I’m part of this region, too. Nonetheless,
>
>> - IPv6 is the end. But IPv4 is still a means to the end.
>
> No… IPv4 is a temporary means of survival and is to some extent the status quo. Nothing more.

It can be looked at as a temporary means of survival and that very
premise makes it the means to the IPv6 end. Because the internet still
operates mostly on IPv4 and an IPv6 only island cannot be reached to
by an IPv4 only island unless there a mechanism to make the two
co-exist has been applied. So semantics aside we seem to agree in
principle.

>> - If IPv6 were the absolute solution we would not have a booming a
>> billion dollar IPv4 market.
>
> That’s the same kind of logic currently being used by the climate change deniers.
>
> In the 1960s and 1970s, in my other region, the argument was that if dumping toxic chemicals
> into waterways was a real problem, it wouldn’t be so cheap to do so. Fortunately, the
> EPA was created and huge fines were put in place and the superfund was created to try and
> shift some of the costs of these toxic waste dumpings back on to the sources instead of
> the down-stream victims.

I don't think we should parade IPv4 at the same level as toxic and
hazardous waste.
But using your analogy, please help me understand how the two liken,
who is dumping what on who, and which side is facing any costs as a
result.

>> - As the growing region transits to IPv6 there will still be need for
>> IPv4 meantime. If our IPv4 is not well and meticulously managed during
>> this period it will cost our operators more to buy from the market as
>> AfriNIC runs out completely.
>
> I actually agree with you here. That’s why I oppose the terrible mismanagement
> proposed in the soft landing BIS proposal which would deprive operators of networks
> in the region of the addresses they need in the present in order to protect imaginary
> future operators who may never materialize.

OK, if you opt to think in binary, you will be right. But you of
course know that this is not how planning and forecasting works. The
region is growing. AfriNIC member numbers are increasing year on year
and most are small players. And when you look at those numbers in each
country and other metrics like internet penetration rates per country
to mention but a few, you know that the forecasts are based on facts.
If dinner was served at your table and you got home before your kids,
would you eat all of it because they are not yet home?

> Forcing present operators to pay higher rates in the transfer market because they cannot
> get the addresses they need in order to preserve inventory for operators that don’t actually
> exist is nonsensical and quite far from anything I would consider to be “meticulous management”

It is also a bit nonsensical to pretend that there will be no new
operators. This is oblivion at its best. The continent still has many,
many businesses (and other projects such as schools, community
networks etc) that are upcoming within this transition phase that will
NOT afford IPs from the transfer market and they need to be catered
for. Of course an IPv6 only option will not be their solution as you
are aware.

>> - A mechanism to put in place a carefully managed runout which ensures
>> fair allocation specifically for a region like Africa that has many
>> late business and startups is very critical for us.
>
> If I were to see such a proposal, I would support it. The proposal that is the subject
> of this thread is pretty far from that.

It does to some extent Owen. It applies limitations to slow down
consumption rates. Your only strong argument is that those operators
are imaginary, which you very well know us a flawed argument because
it defeats the very existence of the concept of planning and
forecasting.

>> - Irrespective and irrelevant of evolution of the proposal and
>> bickering of authors the proposal has the best interests of African
>> network operators and Africa region in general.
>
> Here we couldn’t disagree more. This proposal has the best interests of imaginary operators
> that don’t even exist and may never exist being placed above the needs of real operators that
> actually have networks and customers they are trying to serve today.
>
> I don’t deny that the authors genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interests of
> the community. I’m not accusing anyone of malfeasance or malicious action beyond the ad hominem
> and hostile rhetoric which has served only to make it more difficult for the community to find
> common ground.

Yes at this stage let us continue to reason within what is the long
term best interest of our community. In this case I mean Africa. In
the same faith, your analogy of imaginary operators is still baffling
me. I wonder what makes you think the internet in the continent has
stopped growing and that no new operators will emerge.

J