[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Jackson Muthili]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 04:18 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> No, the IPv6 end can be achieved without any IPv4 at all if one desires to do so.

Yes. And then be out of business because pretty much nobody can access
those IPv6 only services.

> IPv4 doesn’t do anything to help you deploy IPv6.

Yes. If you want to be an island.

> Therefore, IPv4 is not an means to the IPv6 end. IPv4 is a means to communicate
> with the legacy internet. Nothing more, nothing less.

And this legacy internet is where the customers and the money is.

>>>> - 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.
>
> I’m not. I’m parading the use of IPv4 combined with the failure to implement IPv6
> at a similar level because it has the same kind of cost-shifting effect.
>
>> 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.
>
> By failing to implement IPv6 and continuing to operate IPv4 only, an organization is
> forcing everyone else that wants to communicate with them to continue to maintain and
> in some cases expand their own IPv4 infrastructure at an ever increasing cost, much the
> way that those dumping toxic waste were saving money by not paying for hazmat disposal
> while shifting costs on to the downstream public in the form of medical bills, cleanup
> costs, etc.
>
> Do you understand now?

The organization selling services over IPv4 does so due to market
dynamics of demand and supply. If I dont make money serving products
on IPv6 those products will be served over IPv4. Nobody is forcing
anyone. It is just the situation.

>>>> - 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?
>
> That’s not a valid analogy here and you known it. These speculative future
> startups that are in your forecast aren’t my children. They’re other customers
> going to the same store that I am going to.
> Let’s use a better analogy… This is more like a store being operated in a time of shortage.

Yes.

> Let’s use eggs for the example.
>
> As a store owner, you know that there is a looming shortage of eggs because of some horrible
> disease that has afflicted all of the local chickens and egg production is less than 1/4 of
> normal.
>
> Would you limit the number of cartons of eggs each customer can buy and prohibit customers from
> getting in line again if they need more eggs?

It depends on the community your shop is in and the people you are
serving. Your analogy works in an environment that is purely
commercial. AfriNIC is not in the business of selling commodities to
the highest bidder. If this was the case, USA, Russia, China etc would
buy all addresses since 2005 and RIRs would close shop.

> Would you tell the commercial bakery down the street
> that you will not sell them 12 dozen eggs because you might have families coming in tomorrow that
> might need eggs?

YES!!!!! In the kind of space RIRs serve and operate in.

> No, you’re going to pocket the cash as fast as you can and sell the eggs to whoever wants to buy
> them.

This is not the model behind RIRs.
Your analogy is out of place, does not apply.
RIRs are not for profit.

> Obviously this is still a flawed analogy in that we do actually place some limits and only allow
> each person to buy the eggs that they can show they actually intend to use and need.

Good you have now applied the reasoning that is relevant to the discussion.

>>> 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.
>
> I am not pretending there will be no new operators. I am saying that the protection
> of new operators which may or may not come into being (surely some will, but can you
> guarantee it will be enough to consume the amount of address space this policy proposes
> to set aside for them? Didn’t think so) at the expense of existing operators. Let the
> new operators and the existing operators compete for the addresses on a level first come
> first served playing field. When the address space is gone, it is gone. C’est la vie.
>
>>>> - 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.
>
> But these limitations don’t reduce need, they only reduce consumption. They create an
> artificial shortage early in order to prolong the duration of the real shortage later.

There is no artificial shortage being created.

The shortage is already here.

> That’s not carefully managing runout, that’s screwing the entire community to protect
> a small part of the community that doesn’t even exist yet and may never exist.

Although our discussion has been centered around the needs of upcoming
businesses, there are also those existing businesses that are still
needing a piece of that resource at a point in future. You let the
greedy ones grab all.

> I’m not saying that there will be no new operators. I’m saying that you don’t know how
> long the space will last under the limitations proposed and that you can only implement
> those limitations if you prevent people who actually need addresses today from getting
> them.

When a scarcity presents itself, you cannot hide your head in the sand
and pretend it is not there.
The internet now is a basic human need to a large extent just like
water. Rationing is the only way to manage a scarce but needed
resource that must be consumed by everyone. Unless you think some
people or communities do not deserve to be connected.

J