<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>I guess it is a simple question of what can we do to ensure that the telcos and we know the best users are mobile operators who can use this space easily and surely we have ADSL in many parts of our service region who are still bound to NAT.</div><div><br></div><div>Do we need a lenient policy to force them to take up more space but still we want the end users at the same time to adopt so we can wear our space out and move on. </div><div><br></div><div>my guess is that we all know what is happening and how things are moving but we need to reflect better on easing the space allocation whilst ensuring a proper allocation without being stolen.</div><div><br></div><div>The best question is what policy do we push to ensure that these happen naturally.</div><div><br></div><div>Kris</div><br><div><div>On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Kofi ansa akufo <<a href="mailto:kofi.ansa@gmail.com">kofi.ansa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi All<br><br></div>Well so IPv4 is depleting in other regions - but what are the REAL stats with respect to the type of consumers of the resources in those regions? Which kind of LIRs and EUs are consuming the resources in these regions? Is it telcos, Hosting Providers? I bet you will find 7 out of 10 homes in these regions using NAT assuming v6 is not transparently pushed to these consumers.<br>
<br>We still have a lot of mobile Telcos NATing. If these kind of LIRs alone in our region decide to do away with NATing, our IPv4 left will be vaporized :). We sldo see a lot of LTE (well branded as 4G data service) being deployed which instead of taking advantage of new setups to deploy native v6 and / or v4 also going down the NATing route. If we really want to do away with the rest of the v4 quickly i bet these groups hold the solution. But then how much does the community get out of this in terms of both revenue, infrastructure as well job creation? Is there a case for encouraging businesses in other regions to be established or co-located in our region for mutual benefit?<br>
<br></div><div>What we have by far in terms of access technology which has seen much usage of IPv4 is xDSL (e.g. ADSL). Even here due to operational cost many operators assign a single dynamic IPv4 address to each client CPE (unless explicity requested by customer) which by default implement NAT behind the "public dynamic IPv4". Most consumer CPEs by default implement NATing and a few have IPv6 in their protocol stack. A few providers have well deployed automated push configs to CPEs in terms of managed services. <br>
<br>- This is where I believe IPv6 adoption program should concentrate. Encourage procurement of CPEs with v6 support as well as put up element management systems which will automatically configure such CPEs not just for the outside facing interfaces but the inside as well. New roll-outs Projects like LTE should consider going native v6.<br>
<br></div><div>Key point here is if End Users - I mean consumers (not Companies in the EU category) seldom care about how their various devices are connected be it NATing behind one Public IP or a hierarchy of NATing. Are they our target group? If they are what should we do to make them aware of the issues with NATing and how do we make their connectivity transparent to them?<br>
<br></div><div>cheers<br><br></div><div>Kofi <br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 June 2014 10:47, Andrew Alston <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi All,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As far as I can see it the following should be considered.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Firstly, our continent is far to NAT dependent, and this is in everyone’s disadvantage. >From a network provider perspective, clients who run NAT are more likely
to churn due to ease of renumbering. From a client perspective, the limitations on end to end communications can introduce problems. From a security perspective, the ability of individuals with nefarious purpose to hide behind NAT creates problems. As such,
I’d argue that using our remaining space to remove the heavy NAT we see on this continent would be advantageous.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Further to this, the removal of NAT actually encourages the adoption of IPv6, it is far easier to dual-stack a network with IPv6 if you can run a single topology
without worrying about the IPv4 translations. The question is, how do we encourage people to move away from a legacy behavior that is in their disadvantage but for so long as been painted as a security mechanism (which it most certainly is not, and there
are multiple papers to back this perspective available).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Secondly, we need to consider if we wish to encourage end user adoption of IPv4 space, or encourage further takeup of space by LIR’s. There is a key differentiator
here, and it actually creates an interesting conflict. From a provider perspective, having clients numbered on their space again, reduces churn and is in the advantage of the provider (LIR), from a client perspective, having provider independent space makes
them more portable, grants the easy ability to multi-home and in many instances it may be easier for them to obtain end user space than to get it out of a provider. That however comes with the disadvantage that the end user who chooses this route will probably
need to think about running BGP (particularly if they are multi-homing), or alternatively having their sole provider announce on their behalf, this creates complexity that can lead to a rise in OPEX.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Either way though, I believe we need to encourage the adoption of our space by whatever reasonable means are possible. Sitting on a large pool of IPv4 space
that is being unallocated disadvantages the continent in a multitude of ways, including, but not limited to:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>a.)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The amount of V4 space sitting unused discourages the adoption of IPv6, which in the long term holistic sense is bad for the continent in general<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>b.)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The large pool encourages dodgy vendors to come with an argument that we don’t need V6 any time soon so we can be a legacy hardware dumping ground<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>c.)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">A greater adoption of V4 by the general community will lead to a greater economy of scale in terms of allocation and management of space within the
RIR.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hence, I’d welcome any ideas as to how to drastically encourage the uptake of the V4 that is sitting unused in our pool.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Note: This thoughts represent my personal views and are in no way stated as board perspective or the perspective of any other entity to which I may be associated.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Andrew<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-bounces@afrinic.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-bounces@afrinic.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kris Seeburn<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> rpd<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">There are two ends to it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would actually defeat the full push of ipv6<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move to ipv6 faster<u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good deal of ipv4 space. The question
is how do we move both agenda forward?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst still making money
out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Kris<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian <<a href="mailto:christianbope@gmail.com" target="_blank">christianbope@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to protect our critical resources will be great.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">With best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">writing on my personal capacity. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><p>Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted.
<u></u><u></u></p><p>Should this region be worried?... maybe:<br>
- More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue)<br>
- Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also
"by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen?<u></u><u></u></p><p>Cheers!<br>
PS: My views alone.<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" <<a href="mailto:apb@cequrux.com" target="_blank">apb@cequrux.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><p class="MsoNormal">Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011.<br>
<br>
Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy.<br>
<br>
Announcements from 20 May 2014:<br>
<<a href="http://www.nro.net/news/lacnics-ipv4-address-pool-now-down-to-a-9" target="_blank">http://www.nro.net/news/lacnics-ipv4-address-pool-now-down-to-a-9</a>><br>
<<a href="http://www.nro.net/news/iana-allocates-recovered-ipv4-addresses-to-rir" target="_blank">http://www.nro.net/news/iana-allocates-recovered-ipv4-addresses-to-rir</a>><br>
<br>
Announcement from 10 Jun 2014:<br>
<<a href="http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac" target="_blank">http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac</a>><br>
<br>
--apb (Alan Barrett)<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rpd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rpd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
rpd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Kris Seeburn<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" target="_blank">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="margin-top:0in;outline:0px;display:table-cell" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#333333;line-height:14.4pt;vertical-align:top;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit">
<a name="14689b242f20e04b_webProfileURL"></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/" title="View public profile" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"inherit","serif";color:#666666;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none">www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/</span></a><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"inherit","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial">DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please
notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made
on behalf of this company or one of its agents.<br>
<br>
</font>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
rpd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>rpd mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<br></blockquote></div><br>
<br></body></html>