[rpd] Questions about IP Allocation rate

[Owen DeLong]

I’m not convinced that the rest of the world should wait for them to catch up.

You pose it as a situation where they would be held up by lack of IPv4 resources.

I pose it as a situation where the rest of Africa is being held up waiting for them to make use of those resources as they are denied to the rest of Africa.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective.

Owen


> On Oct 15, 2025, at 03:51, ben.roberts at afrinic.net wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> South Africa has approx 850 AS Numbers with approx 64 million population which is 0.00001328125  members per capita of population.  
>  
> The whole of Africa has population of say 1.5 Billion.  If the continental average were to catch up with South Africa, arguably the most digitally advanced African Nation then one can apply that average x the pan African population to get
>  
> 0.00001328125 x 1.5 Billion = 19,921 members
>  
> So an increase from 2400 number holding resource members to 19,921, so yes exactly about 17,000 extra members are possible.  Each one holding AS number, a nominal IPv4 range, plus a bigger IPv6 range.
>  
> While some African nations are up to 15 to 20 years behind South Africa in terms of digital development, they should not be held back in catch up by availability of IP resources don’t you think?
>  
> Regards
>  
> Ben
>  
> From: Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> 
> Sent: 15 October 2025 11:55
> To: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
> Cc: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions about IP Allocation rate
>  
> Do you really expect 17,000+ legitimate  new entrants in the next X years (where X is the number of years you expect before catering to laggards is no longer a requirement) in the AFRINIC service area? I think that’s a pretty gross overestimate. 
>  
> Owen
>  
> 
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2025, at 00:39, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025, 9:42 am jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>>> Is not for the peering (it is not needed even for IXPs, we can use IPv6-only), is for the NAT64.
>> 
>>  
>> RFC6146 is widely supported by most vendors today and a bare minimum of /24 v4 space for translators is foresight grounded on reality of v4/v6 co-existance.
>>  
>> More so for new entrants who must not be succummed to IPv$ brokers/leasers who stockpile to monetize in future based on scarcity.
>>  
>> Noah
>>  
>> Noah
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20251015/0345b53b/attachment.html>