[rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.

[Benson Muite]

"jordi.palet--- via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> writes:

Hi Jordi,

Encouraging more IPv6 adoption is helpful.  MNOs sharing IPv4 addresses
leads to problematic internet access, at least some IPs I have received
temporarily have been listed at:
https://www.dronebl.org/

That being said, sharing an IPv4 address behind a NAT gives some level
of privacy which may require more configuration effort if IPv6 is used.
  
> Hi Dorothy,
>
> I need to make this clear again. There is no such thing as migration, we don’t turn-off IPv4 completely. Anyone can keep using it. What we are doing is to ensure with IPv6-only with IPv4-as-a-Service, that both protocols coexist, so we do an ordered transition, at the pace of everyone.
>
> As faster you move to IPv6, as cheaper is your CapEx and OpEx, it is up to each operator.
>

There is an initial setup and training cost.  For hardware, while one
can buy routers from other places outside Africa, some of the countries
mentioned as leading in the post:
https://www.digitaleconomy.ke/post/ipv4-address-allocation-in-africa-are-you-above-or-below-the-ip-address-poverty-line
also have growing electronics industries, unfortunately none are
fabricating chips, but PCB assembly is possible.  While many people will
likely start with refurbrished equipment, locally manufactured equipment
maybe easier to repair and update giving a lower total cost of
ownership.

AfriNIC courses on IPv6 are good, but there does not seem to be a strong
link to the African electronics sector and to the education sector.  Are
there any statistics on the numbers of people that have taken AfriNICs
IPv6 courses? Of particular interest would be Nigeria which has
significant internet users and DRC which produces raw material used in
chips, but does little value addition to the raw materials.

My understanding is that a number of tertiary educational institutions have
obtained blocks of IPs from AfriNIC. How actively promoted is IPv6 at
these institutions?  Do any of those people responsible for those
allocations monitor this list or does one need to reach out to them
individually?


> The RIR job is not setting up policies, is up to the community, the global Internet community.
>
> What we are saying is that the Soft Landing policy already was designed to ensure that newcomers and existing players needing more resources, do it together with IPv6 deployment, but we didn’t set rules to verify that and the level of encouragement was basically cero. Now we, as a community (not the RIR), can decide if we want to give a stronger push and what level of push we want to have.
>
> Fighting against IPv6 deployment is non-sense, it is a very high cost not only for all the players in Africa, but also in the rest of Internet.

Encouraging IPv6 adoption is good, but success will depend on more than
just forcing an allocation when applying for a block of IPv4 addresses.
If most people in Africa will be consumers on a mobile network behind a
NAT, then IPv6 uptake will be slow.  If more people are looking to put
up their own online services, they maybe more interest in IPv6 as the
cost of leasing the address will be lower.

Of course, for Africa, if Google and Meta were to turn off IPv4, it
would be painful, but transition to IPv6 would happen real quick!

The other main reason people use the internet is to access government
services.  This sector tends to be price sensitive and difficult to move
in new directions.  Simply forcing it to obtain IPv6 addresses will not
likely encourage IPv6 adoption unless there are tangible benefits to end
users.

>
> We need to see it in the other way around. Deploying IPv6, or extending existing networks with IPv6 is cheaper than buying more and more CGN boxes.
>
> So clearly I must disagree that this will create a burden, on the other way around.
>
> Saying it in a different way: It will be non-sense that an existing operator extend its network to accommodate more customers (that’s the reason they need more IPv4 addresses in the end), and they do it without implementing IPv6, the cost will be bigger with only-IPv4. Same non-sense that a new operator or end-site decides to start just with IPv4, the cost will be bigger.
>
> We need to find the way to word it so there is a proper balance. We are not saying necessarily, because you have “n” new customers and need IPv4 addresses for them, you need to deploy IPv6 in all your network (even less remove IPv4 completely). Let’s find the way to ensure that we request a % of traffic according to the grow that creates you the need for more IPv4 addresses and then ramp-up the following years.

The policy proposal has good intentions, but the feedback here indicates
you are mostly preaching to the choir.  It needs integration with the
wider eco system.

Regards,
Benson