[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Lee Howard]

On 04/28/2018 04:27 PM, Daniel Yakmut wrote:
>
> It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on IPV4.

I agree with this. Do you have any suggestions for such policies?

It seems to me that network operators will deploy IPv6 when it is their 
top priority, and it will only be their top priority when it makes 
business sense. Every business has to do their own analysis to see when 
they will need IPv6, and how long it will take to do it. I can't think 
of anything Afrinic can do to fast track IPv6.

It could be argued that a more restrictive soft landing policy would 
force IPv6 sooner, but unless it allows enough time for IPv6 to be 
deployed, it will only force CGN.

Lee

> Regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ALAIN AINA" <aalain at trstech.net>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 12:55:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
>
> hello,
>
>
>> On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are a number of problems with this:
>>
>> 1.	History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in order to obtain
>> 	more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just makes a mess of
>> 	the registry and registry related statistics.
>>
>> 2.	Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between an IPv4 allocation/assignment
>> 	and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4 /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
>> 	Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.
>>
>> 	IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and allocation boundaries that there
>> 	simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good thing, but it means that what you are
>> 	proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).
>>
>> Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is not wanted?
> Oy yes “community”
>
> The proposal  got  consensus and was  recommended for ratification by BoD. There has been an appeal against co-chair decision. The Appeal committee decision to nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has been challenged.
>
> lets discuss this in Dakar.
>
> —Alain
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained. _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd