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

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

Daniel Yakmut yakmutd at googlemail.com
Tue Jun 2 12:24:46 UTC 2020


I prefer we use the phrase "Underground Market"as against "Black Market".


On 01/06/2020 7:23 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> We have failed on this, and not just in Africa.

>

> We have invested a lot in training engineers, but we haven’t reached

> decision makers in a way that convince them sufficiently to take the

> decision. Some years ago, it was not so easy to probe the point about

> the cost savings, because we were advocating for dual-stack. But

> dual-stack is no longer a possible long-term strategy, and now it

> shows that IPv6-only is much cheaper and possible (IPv6-only

> transition is “relatively” new).

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 1/6/20 19:45, "Kangamutima zabika Christophe"

> <funga.roho at yandex.com <mailto:funga.roho at yandex.com>> escribió:

>

> + community-discuss@

>

> Owen et Noah.

>

> Est ce que depuis toutes ces années où Afrinic fait une

> sensibilisation massive sur la migration à IPV6 Afrinic s'est-il posé

> la question la raison de la FORTE RETICENCE de grands opérateurs

> téléphoniques (principaux fournisseurs actuels à travers l'internet

> mobile ). Parcequ'à mon avis si le maintien de l'essentiel de

> l'infrastructure d'un opérateur comme Airtel, MTN ou Orange dans IPV4

> lui couterait plus cher, ils auraient déjà migré sans qu'Afrinic ne

> leur rappelle à tout moment. Afrinic a déjà mené des formations, des

> atéliers en tout genre plus de 30 pays africains mais très peu ont

> véritablement basculé au IPV6. Je pense que la méthode coercitive la

> bonne (incitation ou obligation des régulateurs, etc.). Il suffirait

> d'avoir un argumentaire pertinent, présenté des avantages (tant

> techniques qu'économiques) et retombées évidentes pour les opérateurs

>  de téléphonie, et FAI opérant en Afrique pour qu'ils l'adoptent dans

> l'ensemble. Tant qu'on se borne sur les memes arguments qui ont

> démontré leur faiblesse depuis plus d'une décennie rien ne changera.

>

> KANGAMUTIMA

>

> 01.06.2020, 05:13, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>:

>

> The opinions below are mine and mine alone. They are not official

> positions of any organization I may be affiliated with…(Several of

> which probably prefer I not post them)

>

> On May 31, 2020, at 14:37 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz

> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:

>

> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:02 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com

> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

>

> On May 31, 2020, at 11:40 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz

> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:

>

> See inline....

>

> We were not faced with a choice between “Implement

> transfer markets or not.” We were faced with a

> choice of “Recognize transfer markets and

>

> regulate them or ensure that they are black

> markets and that the RIR system and its IPv4

> policies become irrelevant to the actual operation of

>

> the internet.”

>

> And black markets still exist nonetheless (a failure

> of responsible audits and accountability) irrespective

> of existing transfer markets imho.

>

> Most of the places where black markets exist with any

> significance are places with unreasonably restrictive

> transfer policies. It’s not so much a failure of

> responsible audits and

>

> accountability as a failure of policy to adapt to reality.

>

> The AfriNIC region has an IPv4 transfer within the AfriNIC

> region policy [link 1]  where under section 5.7 there are

> provisions that permit transfers of IPv4 address space within

> Africa, therefore one would not claim that there are

> unreasonable restrictions.

>

> This depends on your definition of reasonable restrictions, I suppose.

>

> But if responsible audits were to be attempted to ensure

> compliance and accountability that would go to resolve the

> apparent black market.

>

> Would it? I can think of several ways to legitimately transfer the

> use of addresses without necessarily transferring or altering the

> registration at AfriNIC, none of which would be a violation of

> AfriNIC policies as currently written.

>

> My definition of a black market is any effective transfer which is

> not recorded in the RIR database.

>

> Perhaps your definition is any effective transfer which violates

> policy.

>

> Those are very different definitions. The former will not be

> prevented or addressed in any effective way through auditing. The

> latter is a much narrower definition, and would only catch people

> incapable of minimal creative thought.

>

> People are seeing the current overly restrictive transfer

> policy in the AfriNIC region as damage and routing around it.

>

> Well the AfriNIC Bylaws [link 2] Section 3 [Objectives of the

> Company], sub section (iii) below ensures;

>

> *(iii) to promote responsible management of Internet resources

> throughout the African region, as well as the responsible

> development and operation of Internet infrastructures;*

>

> Surely, AfriNIC as a company can not just forget its own

> responsibility as bestowed to her in the Bylaws. The people

> who are seeing this as overly restrictive should understand

> that we can not break our own rules/laws and I don't see how

> such restrictions are a damage if they are meant to ensure

> that number resources within the AfriNIC region are put to

> good use for the purpose they were requested for in order to

> develop the Internet in Africa.

>

> I’m not suggesting that they should. We have agreed to disagree on

> what constitutes compliance with that requirement in the past. I

> see no reason that will change in the foreseeable future.

>

> So now we have folks with capital spending

> most of their energy moving IPv4 address space

> all over the place since its a currency that

> ensures serious economic benefits.

>

> If you know of a way to stop this, I’m all ears.

>

> Impossible to stop economic activities.

>

> Thus, we felt it was better in the ARIN region to provide

> reasonable accommodation while still preserving useful

> aspects of regulation. I think we have achieved

>

> a good balance there and that there’s relatively little

> black market movement of IPv4 resources in the ARIN region

> which has also made it possible to have

>

> better accountability (for example the recent reclamation

> of a large quantity of improperly transferred address space).

>

> What works in ARIN may not necessarily work in the AfrNIC

> region but there are currently some policy proposals the

> working group are looking at within AfriNIC. We shall see how

> that goes as we adhere to our Bylaws.

>

> Sure… Conversely, however, just because it’s Africa doesn’t

> necessarily mean that what works elsewhere won’t work there. Far

> more similarities exist than differences.

>

> Faced with the business externalities that they

> are, they really have no choice but to try

>

> and acquire enough IPv4 to support customer demand

> for as long as possible. I can assure you that

> each of them would love to see customer demand for

> IPv4 go away.

>

> Hence my point that both shall co-exist for years. So

> we cant devalue IPv4 in an attempt to promote IPv6 and

> this is why responsible management of IPv4 space must

> be ensured.

>

> Nobody said that devaluing IPv4 was a way to promote IPv6…

> We said that deploying IPv6 would devalue IPv4.

>

> Ok understood, but my point was that the deployment of IPv6 is

> not a clear cut process as folks seem to suggest since the

> decisions are internal for each entity.

>

> Oh, it is a clear cut process. The timetable is unclear because

> each entity gets to implement on their own schedule, but the

> process is very clear cut and the sooner more entities do deploy

> IPv6, the better for everyone else.

>

> Nonetheless, regardless of the timeframe, the fact remains that

> the best and most effective way to devalue IPv4 is to deploy IPv6.

>

> OTOH, IPv6 is available to the vast majority of

> eyeballs in the US. Comcast has 100% IPv6

> coverage, as do most of the major cellular

> carriers. AIUI, the other major

>

> eyeball ISPs in the US are fast approaching that.

>

> One can attribute different factors to such outcomes

> beyond just the US.

>

> I cited the US as an example because it is the market with

> which I have the greatest familiarity. If you want another

> good example outside of the US, look at the current rate

> of IPv6 adoption around India.

>

> Globally, Google is seeing more than 30% of their traffic

> via IPv6. The prime laggards according to their map are

> northern Asia, Russia, Greenland, the Middle East, and the

> vast majority of Africa.

>

> In fact, Africa is by far, the least deployed continent

> for IPv6, with notable exceptions in Togo and Gabon and

> problematic deployments in Kenya and Burundi.

>

> I think you will see spontaneous deployment of IPv6 across

> China in the near future. Being as all the major ISPs in

> China are essentially one organization owned by the

> government, when the mandate finally comes, implementation

> and deployment will be quite rapid.

>

> I like the "you will see spontaneous deployment of IPv6" part

> of your response but IPv4 is still useful for a while.

>

> Nobody said it wasn’t.

>

> Nonetheless, it is a fact that IPv4 is:

>

> + Increasing in cost both acquisition cost and operational cost.

>

> + Decreasing in functionality

>

> + At some point will be capable of reaching a declining subset of

> the full internet.

>

> Atleast this is how I see it. Capitalism at

> its best.

>

> Or one of the finest examples of how capitalism is

> nearly as flawed as the alternatives.

>

> No system is perfect after all.

>

> Agreed… But people love to tout th failures of socialism

> while often ignoring those same failures in a different

> form in capitalism.

>

> In socialism, the lack of reward for effort and the lack

> of incentive to rise above is cited quite often.

>

> In capitalism, the failure to tie reward and/or incentive

> to a greater good is mostly overlooked. The concept of

> perverse incentives occasionally gets mentioned, but

> usually in arguing for deregulation which often

> exacerbates the most harmful perverse incentives.

>

> The take away for me is that both have pros and cons however,

> for any industry to thrive in either systems, raw-materials

> are extremely important since they form part of the means of

> production. Textile factories in both a socialist and

> capitalist systems would still require Cotton as a raw material.

>

> A textile factory can use cotton. In many cases, it can also use

> polyester, rayon, dacron, nylon, hemp, wool, or a variety of other

> fibers. In Uganda, textiles have been made of fibers from tree bark.

>

> There are many alternatives and if Cotton became scarce and

> expensive, most textile production would shift to other materials

> rather rapidly.

>

> In our case within the Internet Industry, IPv4 addresses (just

> like IPv6) are the scarce resources which form part of the

> means of production for the final service the Internet. As

> such, responsible management of INR is akeen to the promotion

> and development of the Internet Industry in Africa which so

> many on the continent have come to rely on to sell their

> labor, research & education, economic activities, social life etc.

>

> In our case, IPv4 and IPv6 are both raw materials. In an ideal

> world, by now, they would be functional equivalents and could be

> used interchangeably.

>

> Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and we are where we are. As

> such, the textile comparison fails because we have cotton and

> wool, but currently only 40% of the population can wear wool,

> while 100% of the population can wear cotton, but we only have

> enough cotton to make garments for 1/5th of the worlds population,

> thus every person wanting to wear a cotton garment must share that

> garment with at least 4 other strangers.

>

> Owen

>

> ,

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> --

>

> Christophe KANGAMUTIMA ZABIKA

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> **********************************************

> 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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200602/45f4cd94/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list