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

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

Ernest ernest at
Tue Aug 29 17:01:22 UTC 2017


The staff assessment report for version 5 of the "IPv4 Soft Landing - bis" (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT05) policy proposal is now published at:

Authors are especially encouraged to study the report and address staff concerns where necessary.


Owen DeLong wrote on 22/08/2017 22:47:
>> On Aug 19, 2017, at 22:27 , Noah <noah at
>> <mailto:noah at>> wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2017 11:18 a.m., "John Hay" <jhay at
>> <mailto:jhay at>> wrote:
>>     Hi Alain,
>>     On 17 August 2017 at 18:35, ALAIN AINA <aalain at
>>     <mailto: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.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list