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

[Daniel Yakmut]

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>