[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Cloud Innovation Displays Very Poor, If Not Criminal, Netizenship

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Mark,

 

There is already a nice case in Kenya with 464XLAT if I recall correctly.

 

There is another one with 25 million subscribers (mobile, GPON and DSL) coming up. I’m working on it, but can’t disclose yet more details. Unfortunately, it is somehow paused because the Covid-19 … I should have been there working (started in December), but can’t travel there at the time being …

 

Regarding the cost of CGN, it is way *more* expensive than 464XLAT, at least in the mobile world, no CPEs involved! Both Android and iOS support it. People is not making the right numbers, or they are afraid of IPv6. Even if they need to pay for a training and consultancy to set it up, it is still way cheaper than CGN and it is a *long term* solution!!!!

 

With CGN you buy the CGN boxes, you keep resolving issues for apps that need ALGs (which means extra cost, customers unhappy, helpdesk). Then each CGN as it gets more ALGs, has a lower performance, so you need to buy more CGNs. Then you also need to buy more IPv4 addresses! And what about the cost of logging?

 

In the case of 464XLAT, you *don’t need* to buy more addresses, you can even transfer a big portion of your existing ones and get some money back! And because your IPv6 traffic is going to be more than 75%, it means that you need to buy *much less* NAT64 boxes than CGN ones!

 

In general I don’t advocate for regulators to get involved in private company decisions, but the time for that is coming if they don’t react by themselves, and I guess you don’t want to do that in a rush!

 

My point for governments and regulators is another. Goverments must not buy anything (not just hardware, software or connectivity, also human resources and other services) that doesn’t support IPv6 (and not just dual-stack, it must be able to work in an IPv6-only environment when needed), because that’s paid with money from citizens (tax payers), so it will be against law to do a bad expenditure, right? Furthermore, if goverments mandate the IPv6 support, all the ISPs will also start providing the service to business and householders.

 

And last, but not least. I can prove that if a government is connecting many public offices (ministries, municipalities, police, fireman, etc., etc.), in a government network, and they do with IPv6-only (464XLAT), they can save a lot of money.

 

I’ve a case for a country in another region, I can’t disclose it yet, but I can put the figures in the table. Just for 2.000 municipalties (still not talking about all the other government offices …), the cost of doing with IPv4 is about 340.00.000 USD. Which IPv6-only, including 2 government datacenters (main and backup) is about 40.000.000 euros. This is only including the equipment, human resources, IP/ASN resources and connectivity cost – including VoIP (not including any buldings). Of course it need to be tailored for every case, not all the countries have the same number of connected offices, they may have already a DC, etc.

 

So savings every 5 years (those figures are calculated for 5 years terms, assuming that you renew your equipment every 5 years) is 300.000.000 USD for 2.000 government connected offices.

 

Is that making sense for moving to IPv6-only?

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 31/5/20 12:57, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> escribió:

 

 

On 31/May/20 11:58, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:




I’m not sure I’ve mention this before in this list, but our studies and customer cases demonstrate that using 464XLAT, typically 75% of the traffic will be already IPv6. If the network has a higher proportion of residential customers, these figures can go up to 85%.

 

(remember that most of the contents that most of the customers access, are already IPv6: Facebook, Google, YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc., and all the CDNs/caches, all those represent typically more than 75% of the ISPs traffic).

 

This means that the cost of the NAT64 boxes and IPv4 addresses needed is very low.


Agree with all the above.

The problem I've been speaking about in getting Africa on top of IPv6 adoption is one of our own success. The majority of Internet access in Africa happens over a GSM network (2G, 3G, 4G/LTE), which represents millions of users in almost every African country. Sadly, as of today, none of the major or small mobile operators in Africa are taking IPv6 seriously at all.

They continue to spend millions of $$ deploying, upgrading and supporting CGN's, from vendors that have perfectly working IPv6 implementations, but won't shy away from multi-million $$ revenues from these operators.

Just by mobile operators in Africa seriously extending IPv6 to their customers, I'm almost certain we will see a sudden and massive decline in the demand and requirement of IPv4, in the same year! And by extension, if the mobile operators get their customers on to IPv6, it will pressure other non-mobile, terrestrial operators (FTTB, FTTH, ADSL, hosting, e.t.c.) to get the act together, as they will need to keep up with the mobile eye balls, a much easier task for that side of the connection.

If there are any mobile operators on this list, if you're listening, I won't stop harping on about your role in keeping IPv4 a relevant (or irrelevant) headache for Africa.

Internet regulators in Africa on this list, if you're listening, make IPv6 deployment on all mobile services a requirement for license renewal, in lieu of trying to find new ways to squeeze more money from mobile operators with no tangible benefit for the end-user, and the continent as a whole.

Mark.




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200531/28aa9fb3/attachment-0001.html>