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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 19, 2017, at 22:27 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> On 19 Aug 2017 11:18 a.m., "John Hay" <jhay at meraka.csir.co.za <mailto:jhay at meraka.csir.co.za>> wrote:
> Hi Alain,
> 
> On 17 August 2017 at 18:35, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net <mailto:aalain at trstech.net>> 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: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html>
> 
> 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.

3 years to 50% is an average growth of 12% per year. It might be slightly optimistic, but I don’t think it is at all unrealistic.

The graph is up to 20% in August of 2017 which is 4% in the first 2/3rds of the year. From January 2016 to January 2017, there was 6% growth, so it currently looks like the growth rate in 2017 is roughly the same as 2016. 

The growth rate in 2012 was from 0.44% to 0.96%, so IPv6 launch 5 years ago did double the IPv6 penetration, but in terms of absolute growth, the last two years have seen significantly more growth (6% vs. 0.5%) than 5 years ago, so I don’t think your statement attributing everything to that really works here.

> 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.  
> 
> 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.

Please explain how GDP affects the ability to deploy a 25 year old protocol on systems that have (mostly) supported it for 10+ years?

> 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. 

More details are needed here.

> 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.

Which relates to the discussion at hand how, exactly? I don’t think that AfriNIC policy will change any of these factors and I don’t see how denying IPv4 resources to expanding internet deployments today will increase internet penetration in other areas in the future. Indeed, the most likely outcome of a policy which seeks to prevent IPv4 resources from being used for present need is to reduce the quality of user experience in the short term, forcing wider IPv6 deployment in those dense areas and creating a situation where those less dense areas implement IPv4 just about the time everyone else stops using it altogether. End result being that those areas you claim to be trying to protect find themselves once again isolated in an obsolete protocol just as the rest of the continent (and the world) starts turning it off.

> 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’m all for caution, but SL-BIS is, IMHO, the opposite of caution. Indeed, it is, IMHO, reckless and most dangerous to the very groups you claim to be trying to protect above.


Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170822/bbb7a590/attachment.html>