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

[rpd] SL-BIS (Was Re: Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1))

John Hay jhay at
Sun Aug 20 07:54:30 UTC 2017

Hi Noah,

On 20 August 2017 at 07:27, Noah <noah at> wrote:

> On 19 Aug 2017 11:18 a.m., "John Hay" <jhay at> wrote:
> Hi Alain,
> On 17 August 2017 at 18:35, ALAIN AINA <aalain at> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>  Thanks for these comments and questions.  It is the sort of discussions,
>> i am trying  to attract with my  recent mail on the proposal(*) See
>> inline...
> Maybe I should have climbed off my lurker chair earlier. :-/
> Before I answer some of the questions, I think the group should discuss
> how they think the IPv4 to IPv6 transition is going to happen. While we
> might not totally agree because it will be speculation, I think it can help
> to better shape policies like the soft landing one.
> Let me start and if someone wants to respond on this part, we can split it
> in a separate thread?
> If one look at the Google IPv6 Statistics page:
> If one extrapolate the graph, 50% of Google users will be using IPv6 to
> reach them in around 3 years. So after that IPv4 is the minority protocol.
> The graph is seated at 20% im 2017 and that % is a result of a sponteneous
> IPv6 deployment since the world IPv6 launch about 5 years ago. So the 50%
> rapid growth you are projecting is unrealistic as nothing is ever rapid due
> to a lot of factors.

I won't call it spontaneous IPv6 deployment. Those networks had to be
planned, address space requested, hardware upgraded and configured. The one
part that is spontaneous, is that for the most part, the end user probably
did not do anything. She probably just plugged in her machine because most
Operating Systems enable IPv6 by default if the network supports it.

Well one have to understand what the graph and statistics behind it really
measure. It only measures users using Google services. So in effect how
good a job eye ball Providers are doing of implementing IPv6. If you look
at yearly growth, it has been growing by 70 - 100% every year for the last
8-9 years. So I was conservative and took 60% growth, which gave 32% next
year and 51% the year after that and then I added a year for some more
conservatism. :-)

What is also interesting about the graph is that it is higher for a short
period at the end of each year. Also if you zoom in, you will see that it
is higher over weekends. This says to me that the Providers that directly
connect end users (eye balls), do a better job of getting IPv6 rolled out
and that the corporates are lagging slightly behind.

But on the whole this tells me more and more Providers realise that
connectivity is a two way game. At some stage someone else will not be able
to get IPv4 addresses, they will only get IPv6 space. But they will want
their users to still be able to communicate with them. And it is much
easier to implement IPv6 on your network while you have time to plan and do
it properly, than in an emergency because your users/clients/CEO cannot get
to a site that is IPv6 only.

> In fact even the widely used google search engine has been accessible via
> IPv6 for while but yet most of the results it will produce will still be
> pointing to content routed across the IPv4 only Internet.

Yes, but with more and more content on some form of cloud service, this can
change quite quickly. Yes there will always be that old web server that
someone started years ago and forgot about.

> Thefore projections are never realistic because they dont take into
> consideration fundamental economic factors like the GDP of certain parts of
> the world and how GDP and the local enviroment affect Internet penetration.

Can you elaborate on this? I fail to see how this affects IPv4 / IPv6? If
it is equipment cost or old dumped equipment, surely for quite a few years
most network equipment are IPv6 capable? There is surely no reason that
IPv6 capable equipment must be more expensive?

> At some stage we are going to see sites or users with only IPv6 addresses.
> That might put pressure on current IPv4 only sites to add IPv6, especially
> if it is a CEO that cannot communicate with someone and he finds out that
> it is because his IT guys never implemented IPv6.
> So at some stage even those that think they have lots of IPv4 space, will
> implement IPv6 because they need to communicate with IPv6 only sites or
> people. This will cause the use of IPv4 to dwindle because most Operating
> Systems prefer IPv6 for connections if the destination has both.
> ISPs will see traffic through their v6tov4 translation boxes dwindle and
> if v6tov4 cloud services appear, might prefer out sourcing that rather than
> doing it themselves to keep those last sites accessible to their IPv6 only
> clients.
> At some stage sites will start to switch IPv4 off on dual stack machines
> and if IPv4 traffic still warrants it, maybe just a small translation box
> will be in the kept in the corner.
> Already a lot of the big sites people access are available on IPv6,
> Google, Akamai (also everyone that use them to host their data), Facebook,
> CNN... Those that do not have it yet, are busy implementing it.
> So all this leads me to think that in 3-4 years and probably earlier, it
> will be natural for anybody building a new network will do it IPv6 only and
> have a few IPv4 addresses with a v6tov4 translation service of some kind to
> handle those few sites his users still need to access over IPv4. Not like
> now where most people first think of IPv4 addresses and then almost as an
> afterthought add IPv6.
> So that leads to the question, how long do we have to make IPv4 addresses
> last because ending up with a big block that was never allocated is unfair
> to those that could have used it now. Burning everything today is unfair to
> the new guys requesting tomorrow. Will it be unfair to a new guy in 5 years
> though?
> So with that as background...
>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:48, John Hay <jhay at> wrote:
>> I prefer the current soft landing policy, except that I do like the
>> direction of section 5.4.7 (IPv6 deployment reserve) of the -BIS proposal.
>>  SL-BIS with the max in phase 1 to /13 instead of /18 ?
> It depends on what we want to achieve. So it has to compliment the rest of
> the policy. If the policy make it possible for a company to get the same
> size via multiple small requests, we just cause AFRINIC staff more work and
> we fragment the routing tables more, if we force the block too small.
> Fair is a word that has been used in the soft landing threads and it is
> one of those words that sounds so simple, but it is not and I think that is
> in part what caused all the "unhappiness" in the Soft Landing related
> threads.
> To some it is fair to deny someone that needs it now because he already
> got some, for in case someone else comes later.
> To others it is fair to give to ones that ask now because they need it now
> and we do not know how many will really come in future and they might not
> even need their own IPv4 addresses anymore.
> Both have a point and I think we need to find a middle way that feels
> fairly fair to both sides. :-)
> Maybe the fairness should be that for the duration of phase 1, anybody
> that requests, and meet the criteria can get IPv4 space. If we really want
> to, we can use -BIS 5.4.4, where you show your planning for the next 8
> months and you get what you will need for those 8 months. But then you must
> be able to come back and request again at the end of that period. This is
> fair because someone cannot just hog all space in the beginning, so right
> up to the end newcomers also have a chance to get space. Remember big guys
> connecting many people to the internet, are not our enemy. They do what we
> all think should happen in Africa, they connect people to the internet.
> Content providers should also be able to get IPv4 addresses because the
> only reason they need IPv4 addresses is because you have not implemented
> IPv6 for your users yet. :-) And they need to put their servers close
> because that makes your users happy with you. :-)
> I think the phase 2 and "IPv6 deployment reserve" blocks should be folded
> in a single smallish block, that is kept for only new requests and for some
> really critical invention. I don't think even DNS should be classified as
> critical. New requests get a single /24. AFRINIC gets about 150 new members
> a year, so calculations should be based around that.
> It is also fair to newcomers because even if they come after we have run
> out of the big (phase 1) block, they will get a /24. If they arrive before
> we run out, they can get a bigger block, like the rest.
> If we think people found ways to receive IPv4 address space and use it for
> uses that are detrimental to the growth of internet in Africa, we should
> fix the eligibility criteria or maybe if it is possible, add a clause to
> say for which kinds of use the address space may be allocated.
>> I would take it a step further to say that only new LIRs and End Users
>> can get assignments from it. Maybe even only new LIRs?
>> Keeping a /12 for that might be too big. Looking at AFRINIC statistics,
>> there are about 150 new members a year, so for 10 years (which I think is
>> too long, but a nice round number), 1500, rounded up to 2048 at a /24 each
>> is a /13 that needs to be kept out.
>> The spirit of the current SL which SL-bis followed is to make fair
>> distribution, give chance to many, at all stages, but avoid stocking unused
>> space.
>> Thus, the no limit on numbers of request from members in Phase 1 and
>> Phase 2.
> But in -BIS does limit it?
>> The same spirit prevails with the dedicated reserve for IPv6 deployment:
>> - Covers new comers as well as old players(LIRs and  End-users) if they
>> meet
>> =====
>> The applicant must demonstrate that no other allocations or
>> assignments will meet this need.
>> =======
>> -  Make the reserve to last for some times with :
>> * Reserve size (/12)
>> * Limit the max allocation to /24 with an allocations/assignment  window
>> of 6 months(so a member can only get a max of /23 in 12 months)
>> a /12 represents a total of 1,048,576 IPs. At  a rate of 100 nodes
>> sharing one public IPv4, this IPv6 dedicated reserve allows about
>> 104,857,600 nodes access to legacy v4-only networks through IPv6-only
>> networks, when  no more v4 space is left in AFRINIC normal  pool.
>> Africa has the lowest Internet penetration and the biggest growth rate
>> (2000-2017)
> True and there is no denying that. But it also does not say future growth
> has to be in IPv4 internet. I think anybody building a new network now and
> not building it with IPv6 from the ground up and just adding IPv4 where
> needed, is wasting time and money. The point of internet is to communicate
> and get data/information from the rest of the world, so you have to do what
> the rest of the world is doing, not what they did 5 years ago.
> While a 100 nodes sharing an IPv4 address might be needed now, if you have
> rolled out IPv6 and get decent IPv6 connectivity, you might soon find out
> that you can make the ratio higher. (For our group of about 300 people with
> dual-stacked machines, only half of our internet traffic is IPv4 these
> days.)
> PS. I would put a question mark around their statistics because they are
> clearly behind the times with their web site not reachable via IPv6.
>> I do not like in the -BIS proposal, because it penalise
>> legitimate big members, just because they are big. (And big members are not
>> less efficient with addresses.) Telling a member you can get 8 months worth
>> of addresses every 24 months is not going to fit in their business plan. It
>> will be almost the same as telling them come once only.
>> 5.4.6 was introduced in SL-BIS 5.0 based on a community request to fill a
>> gap conditions in SL-bis 4.0
>> It feels like this part was done to achieve a hidden agenda. That might
>> be better done by updating the eligibility criteria.
>> The motivations for the shall be read in the SL-SD proposal.
> I have read that, but miss the reasoning behind it. I just see:
> *"b. Allows organizations to request allocations/assignments without
> limiting the number of times or maximum size that can be requested. The
> authors of this policy feel this is not prudent management of the last /8
> block."*
> I would also like to throw in some more perspective in the grand scheme of
> things.
> Due to various socio-economic and political factors, it would be
> reasonable for a /12 to be set aside to cater for those whose internet is
> not densely developed so that they can get some IPv4 space obviously to
> support routing and access of the legacy IPv4 Internet and numbering of
> critical Infastructure that may still need some legacy IPv4.

Can you show how you get to the /12? I agree something should be set aside,
but it makes it a lot easier if one can mathematically get to a number to
defend. My suggestion of a /13 is based on 150 new AFRINIC members a year,
each of them getting a /24. That space will last 13 years, which start when
the previous pool runs out. And it is meant exclusively for newcomers and
really critical infrastructure.

> Its also a fact that the African Internet is specifically densely
> developed in specific countries per regions od Africa and that is Southern
> Africa mainly .za, Eastern Africa mainly .ke and .tz, Northern Africa
> mainly .eg and .tn and in Western Africa mainly .ng and .gh and
> unfortunately for the rest of the continent, Internet penetration is
> sparcely developed in general and there are complex socio-politican and
> economic factors behind all this.
> Therefore, IMHO, if indeed Afrinic vision and mission which reads....
> Our Vision
> "Be the leading force in growing the internet for Africa's sustainable
> development"
> Our Mission
> "To serve the African Community by providing professional and efficient
> management of Internet number technology usage and development, and
> promoting Internet self-governance."
> Then we ought to be cautious if indeed we all want the best for the future
> of Africa as a whole across the board and that is what i would term as
> UBUNTU Capitalism.

I agree. I see there is nothing about an address version in either the
Vision or the Mission.

To put it another way. If someone asks me now to help design a new network
anywhere in Africa (and world for that matter) and I do not design IPv6 in
from the start, I'm going against the Vision, Mission and Ubuntu. Why? That
network will see the day that IPv6 only sites do arrive somewhere in the
world, and when that happens, you want your users to be able to communicate
with them. And yes, the network will still have IPv4 for now.

Part of Ubuntu is also to care about others. For that reason we have to get
our users on IPv6 because if enough users are on IPv6, newcomers that comes
late will have less need to implement IPv4 and those that cannot get IPv4
will feel less pain.



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

More information about the RPD mailing list