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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Noah noah at
Sat Jul 29 16:31:38 UTC 2017

On 28 Jul 2017 10:52 p.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at> wrote:

In the grand scheme of things, everyone would be able to apply for the
resources and get them on a need basis.

The first part of this statement is true. The latter part is specifically
not true under this proposal.

Specifically, the second part of the statement is contrary to,, 5.4.5, and most especially 5.4.6.

ment/policy-proposals/2153-ipv4-soft-landing-bis for those who wish to
review it)

So where is the draft policy is any existing network denied ability to get

Limiting how much an existing or new entrant gets allocated is the very
purpose of this policy proposal of which both existing and new get space at
the same cost.

While you are saying that resources will continue to be allocated, you are
making this look black and white while there are many shades of grey

This proposal (as stated above) places significant restrictions and
reductions on this allocation process and places existing networks at an
extreme disadvantage. It prevents existing network operators from getting
additional space more than once every 2 years, while only allowing them to
get 8 months worth of address space, for example.

Yes and that is the purpose so that also new entrants get the opportunity
to get IPv4 space that can enable them have access the legacy network which
the existing networks already have access too.

When Afrinic opened doors back in 2004, did everyone on this continent get
all resources at the same time?

There are startups that cropped up later in the past 5 years with the
arrival of the submarine fiber and have been able to also get some
resources because the process was always on need basis and not on rush rush
and deplete.

Sure, but I don’t see how that justifies saying no to providers that exist
today and creating an artificial shortage today to prevent providers that
don’t exist from experiencing that shortage many years in the future. It’s
this part of the policy proposal that simply doesn’t make any sense to me.
Can you please explain the logic of doing that to me?

I just told you that between 2004 and 2017,  Afrinic has been able to
allocate space to new startups across the continent and that is because
IPv4 space continues to be available through out this period.

We are telling you that new entrants will need access to legacy IPv4
internet and Afrinic can make that possible with the last /8.

We are telling you that new startups may not necessarily afford the IPv4
transfer market prices compared to what Afrinic would charge them for
membership. The cost from Afrinic is the same for both new applicant and
existing network.

We also telling you that existing members can still get additional
resources with justification after they have maximised what they currently
have at the same cost as new entrant.

Ack that IPv6 is superior improvement but that is besided the point. The
lesser IPv4 is the status quo today and will remain as such in this Africa
continent because Africa is not India or China but more than 50 sovereign
states each with its own local laws and socio-economic  and political

So you are advocating for Africa to once again become disenfranchised from
the world internet by being held back by this disadvantageous protocol even
as the rest of the world moves forward with IPv6? Isn’t this the kind of
attitude that would get someone of my skin color branded as a colonialist?

There you go again.  English is foreign to me but let me try this again.

Majority of African Internet is routed using the so called legacy IPv4
today and even tomorrow when I wake up from sleep it will be the case. So
as much as IPv6 is catching some ground in Africa I will still wake up to a
larger IPv4 internet.

So no am not advocating anything beyond stating the reality and I want you
to understand that deploying IPv6 will take time in our region for reasons
beyond our own comprehension.

So I am not here to show off with you on who understands what better.

You were the one who started with claiming that IPv4 still works while we
are fixing IPv6. If you can’t remember that, I have retained your quote
above my earlier statement here for context. (3 levels of quotation above
my 2-level).

I stand by may claims. This is not about how sweet and wonderful IPv6 is
over IPv4.

This is about the fact that the African Internet is extensively IPv4 with a
few pockets of IPv6 internet which continues to be deployed sponteneously.

When the cost of maintaining an IPv4 infrastructure exceeds the value of
those customers, I think they will do it in a heartbeat. However, I don’t
believe that more than
1 billion Africans will still be IPv4-only in even 3 years. I believe that
many of them will have IPv6, so the question becomes what fraction of
Africa gets ignored at that
time more than it is a question of ignoring all of Africa.

Further, that fraction is a monotonically decreasing fraction of the
continent, making it progressively less and less valuable to these

They are earlier adopters and late adopters will also catch up as factors
that affect USA based companies are not the same factors that affect
Afrinican based companies.

Africa is a completely different market than America or Europe for that

I keep hearing this, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny quite as well as
you seem to think.

We can agree to disagree....

IPv4 works and I am sending you this email from my IPv4 capable android
handset whose software stack unfortunately doesnt have support for IPv6 nor
does my date provider.

In fact even in the office, this phones doesnt support IPv6 of the wifi
even thought my macbook pro does support and gets IPv6 addresses through
the same dual-stack wifi network.

Wow… Must suck to be you… Sorry to hear that. IPv6 works too and I’m
sending you this email from my IPv6 iMAC via my IPv6 enabled Linux Mail
server running a very old version of Sendmail on Fedora.

I initially read your email on my IPv6 enabled iPhone which doesn’t even
receive an IPv4 address from my cellular provider any more. It is 100% IPv6
only now. Any access to IPv4 sites or content is via NAT64.

Owen this is not a competition lol.

Actually, I don’t think it’s going to be all that long before IPv4 is less

Yes in North America but not in the African continent with over 50 states
with different economic conditions.

So you believe it is good for Africa to again become isolated from the rest
of the world? Really?

This is a global internet. If the rest of the internet starts turning off
IPv4, then Africa either turns on IPv6 or becomes disconnected from the
world. It’s as simple as that.

Did anyone say that others on the internet are not making an effort to
deploy IPv6 including those in Africa.

Let those who are done with IPv4 turn it off but in case they want to
access some legacy services still seated on IPv4 internet, tranlations
mechanisms are in place.

Interesting… My reality is built from documented proven facts and

What is your reality built from?

My reality is from deploying an extensive dual-stack Africa network
spanning across the eastern and western coasts of Africa into Europe, a
network that servers majority IPv4 only customers today with a few of them
making efforts to deploy IPv6 and transit through us.

Are you really suggesting that the performance and quality of IPv4 service
is not degrading as the deployment and use of NAT increases? Really? Your
reality seems most interesting, indeed.

Owen come on. Ok for the record, IPv6 is the best, happy now. But IPv4/NAT
still exists and will continue to exist today and tomorrow.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list