[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Andre van Zyl]

Hi Andrew,

I must just put my hand up here and point out that it was I who mentioned the SA ISP, not Arnaud :-)

I get that they are de-aggregated, and that is their perogative I guess. I still don't think me stating that they have 500 prefixes is misleading, 500 /24's is still a lot of space.

They are indeed an ADSL provider, and what you say around DSL in SA is correct. However, they are also a hosting, and an rapidly expanding FTTH operation, and by your own feedback FTTH is an area where IPv6 can be and is successfully deployed. 

Anyhow, as indicated in a previous mail, a little education on my part has led me to change my position somewhat on issuing of IPv4 space. I now understand that there are better ways to ensure resource availability for IPv6 deployment.

Regards,
Andre
 

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:00:12 +0000
Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> Arnaud,
> 
> Firstly, the ISP you refer to (I had to figure out which one it was, and it didn’t take long to work this out, since there is only one that matches criteria).
> 
> Your numbers cited are *VASTLY* misleading – over 500 prefix’s – this is true – however – let’s be real for a second and actually aggregate those prefix’s before we start screaming about space.
> 
> Aggregated – they announce a total of 9 prefix’s – they are all subsets of the same block – the number of prefix’s here is pretty meaningless.  While I don’t agree with the massive level of de-aggregation here, its probably done as an anti-hijack mechanism, *shrug* fact is – the number you cited – is a total misnomer.
> 
> Secondly – that particular ISP – is a DSL provider – now – let me explain a few things about DSL in South Africa
> 
> 
>   1.  There is no naked DSL to my knowledge as of right now – (As of the 3rd of April 2017 there certainly wasn’t and the country has been asking for such for more years than I can count)
>   2.  Without naked DSL – native provision of v6 to the consumer is impossible – and unless you control the CPE there is no way to tunnel v6 back to the customer either – since that would have to be manually configured
> 
> Effectively – they have no real means of getting v6 to the vast majority of their customers – so why announce it?  For what purpose?  You announce space you are using – not space you are announcing to show off that you can.
> 
> Please – before citing figures that are misleading, and making statements that penalize specific companies – understand the market you are talking about – and check the numbers to ensure they are actually accurate and fair.
> 
> And quite frankly, do I believe said ISP should be able to get more v4 space?  100% I do – they are using it – that is probably either the largest or second largest DSL provider in the country – they are connecting users – their space is in active use – and I’d rather see them announcing their current roughly /14.5 worth of space and using it, than see a /22 sitting around not used for 10 years.  If people need the space – and can actively use it to connect customers to the Internet today – 100% they should be allowed to have it and use it.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> P.S – For the record – I have absolutely zero relationship to the ISP in question – nor have I ever done any work for them and have no bias in what I am saying above – I would say the same for any ISP in the position they are in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 August 2017 18:50
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
> 
> Hi Owen, Hi Community , see in lines
> 
> Le 31 juil. 2017 17:54, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > As an example: There is a residential ISP in South Africa who has over 500 IPv4 prefixes. How many IPv6 prefixes do they announce? None. ZERO. You are saying that this operator should be allowed as much more IPv4 space as they can get, until it runs out, and tough luck to the new IPv6 operator down the line who needs IPv4 to connect to the legacy Internet. I'm sorry, I can not, and won't support the continued distribution of IPv4 resources to existing operators to maintain the IPv4 status quo.
> Not at all… If you want to write a policy that resolves this issue without the other baggage and problems present in this policy, I would support a clean policy designed to address that issue and make space available to ANYONE specifically for IPv6 to IPv4 connectivity/transition. In fact, I wrote such a policy in the ARIN region years ago and it is now NRPM section 4.10 in the ARIN region.
> >
> >
> I don't really know how things work in ARIN region, but the proposal which led to section 4.10 of ARIN NRPM was authored by Alain Durand.
> 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html>
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-June/011277.html<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-June/011277.html>
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regads
> Arnaud.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 


-- 
Andre van Zyl <vanzyla at bcxcomms.net>