<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>i was a new comer at some point way back 2012 ... as a PI <br><br>i think i asked IPv4 and ASN ... automatically i got IPv6 (/48)...... i thought this started long ago!<br><br>i think what we need to try to figure out and possibly do is to have a Guide ready to give to the new comers/applicants to guide them from the start on how to do at least a DUAL STACK.... to let them start using IPv6 automatically and use IPV4 at the same to allow them continue access those resources elsewhere which are still on IPv4.....<br>im trying to think of a scenario of showing new users (applicants) that it's IPv6 era now.... but we are forced to somehow embed IPv4 in order to continue access services still on V4.....<br><br><br><br><br><br> <br>
<br>
<em><font color="#1f497d" face="Comic Sans MS">Arbogast Fabian,</font></em><br>
<em><font color="#1f497d" face="Comic Sans MS">cell:+255-78-447-8387</font></em><br><br><br><div>> To: aalain@trstech.net; rpd@afrinic.net<br>> From: mark.tinka@seacom.mu<br>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:30:20 +0200<br>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On 20/Jun/16 13:11, ALAIN AINA wrote:<br>> <br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Yes, that the provision we have in the policy proposal, but based on<br>> > what we heard on this list about new comers which would only need<br>> > IPv4*, i was trying to get a common ground for all, so we can move on.<br>> ><br>> > [*] i am still convinced that no one shall get IPv4 from the the last<br>> > /8 without showing IPv6 and will remain to it if we can get a rough<br>> > consensus on it, which i think is possible.<br>> <br>> Well, new entrants have neither, so expecting them to show IPv6<br>> deployment (or allocation) is moot. If the policy is updated as such, it<br>> will be good to make this distinction clear.<br>> <br>> That said, I'm not so sure about creating a "new entrants" IPv4 pool.<br>> From an enforcement standpoint, I can't immediately see how this can be<br>> tracked, which, by extension, means anyone could "create" a new entrant<br>> business to circumnavigate the policy. But it would be nice to hear<br>> other views. Personally, I'm still 50/50...<br>> <br>> Mark.<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> RPD mailing list<br>> RPD@afrinic.net<br>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br></div> </div></body>
</html>