Search RPD Archives
[rpd] SL-BIS (Was Re: Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1))
owen at delong.com
Fri Sep 22 14:40:20 UTC 2017
> - While the google global stats sound encouraging, the growth is not uniform across regions and countries. The per region and country distribution is more revealing.
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption>
> - Even if IPv4 becomes minority in 3 years, it will still be in the game and may still be majority in some regions including ours.
This is one of my greatest fears for the African continent… That this will, indeed, be the case, once again isolating the African continent from the world community as the world moves on and abandons IPv4 while Africa remains entirely dependent on this beleaguered aged protocol that should have been put out to pasture more than a decade ago.
This is the best argument I can imagine anyone making against SL-BIS… It’s ability to continue to encourage the status quo in Africa and further extend the duration of the pain that is IPv4.
> SL-bis 4.0 after long series of discussions proposes:
> Phase 1, move from /10 to /18. no limit on number of requests.
> Phase 2, set max to /22, no limit on number of requests
> Turn the unforeseen future reserve of /12 to IPv6 deployment dedicated reserve:
> * serve old and new members to allow access to legacy v4-only networks from v6-only networks
> * with the special and restrictive allocation criteria set in 5.4.7
Which is a huge improvement over the previous SL-BIS proposals, but a /12 is still too large of a set-aside for this purpose, IMHO.
>> Thus, the no limit on numbers of request from members in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
>> But 126.96.36.199 in -BIS does limit it?
> As i said 188.8.131.52 was introduced in SL-bis 5.0 as a compromise to a community “approved” version which was supposed to reach consensus and be fast tracked.
Except that the community didn’t really approve, and at least in my opinion, this is a step in the wrong direction.
Further, I disagree with the idea that it was “supposed to be fast tracked”. It didn’t reach consensus, and the whole “fast track” concept was a fallacy promulgated by the promotors of the policy.
>> Africa has the lowest Internet penetration and the biggest growth rate (2000-2017) http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>
>> True and there is no denying that. But it also does not say future growth has to be in IPv4 internet.
> Definitely not. I read this as : We have a huge users to be connected in this region, which must be around v6, but we have to guarantee access to legacy v4-only for a long period as probability is high for persistent v4-only for extended period in this region.
Am I the only one that sees this as a tautology?
"We are largely v4 only so we must preserve support for staying v4 only for a long time.”
The reality is that the longer Africa continues this idea of protecting those that are IPv4-only, the greater the risk that Africa will once again become isolated from the global internet. Facebook has already turned off IPv4 in most of their datacenters and supports IPv4 access to their web site(s) through secondary means.
The majority of mobile traffic in North America is already IPv6.
Europe is not far behind.
Some ISPs are now approaching 40% for fixed wireline traffic being IPv6.
7 of the top 10 web sites are now available over IPv6.
If you think that the rest of the world’s content providers are going to go to the expense of continuing to operate IPv4 support systems just to support the connected users in Africa that don’t have IPv6 yet, I think you are in for a surprise.
> In conclusion,
> As to decide today taking into account:
> - all we discuss here
> - the statistics for the region
> - the upcoming implementation of Intra-region v4 transfer
> - the specificities of this region,
> wise risks management strategy would recommend the “conservative” approach which counts v4 in our v6 future for the coming years. Better be proven wrong in this mode than in the others ?
This is a gross mischaracterization of the facts.
SL-BIS isn’t a conservative approach which accounts for v4 in our IPv6 future. SL-BIS is a radical approach which denies IPv4 resources to those with present and meaningful need in the vague hope that this somehow enhances the ability for future new entrants to continue to play in the IPv4 sandbox for decades to come.
The original SL proposal has most of the same defects. The good news about SL-BIS 4.0 was that it’s only a little bit worse than the current policy.
The conservative approach to risk management would be to recognize that the whole fundamental premise of “Soft Landing” is flawed from the word go and repeal the original policy.
The next best thing is to leave policy as is and live with the consequences as they stand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD