<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p>somehow i'm not very far from Mark's direction.....</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>5.4.5.1 I think it might be difficult if not impossible for LIRs and End Users to justify at least 90% usage of the previous IPv4 allocation.... this is due to the popular NAT effect! Most of them are apportioning a small part of Public IPv4 and behind
it they are putting so many Private IP under NAT...... they won't be able to justify the use ...but in the real sense they need IPv4 for the purpose of smoothly migration from IPv4 to IPv6.......whether they are aware or not this is a FACT! Hence if there
could be a way of seeing how many NAT IPs these people have... this could have given out a clear indication of how may IPv4 are needed to go hand-in-hand with IPv6 (dual stack)...</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>5.4.5.2 here i think we need to to align new entrants with proper IPv6 adoption strategies; so IPv4 here should be meant to assist them adopt IPv6 smoothly and that IPv4 is for a short-while
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>regards,<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><em><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="#1f497d">Arbogast Fabian,</font></em><em></em><br>
<em></em></p>
<div id="Signature"><em><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="#1f497d">cell:+255-78-447-8387</font></em><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 31, 2017 9:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Alston; Andre van Zyl; Owen DeLong<br>
<b>Cc:</b> rpd List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/Jul/17 05:41, Andrew Alston wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left:2px solid #009900!important; border-right:2px solid #009900!important; padding:0px 15px 0px 15px; margin:8px 2px; background-color:null!important; color:null!important">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As I have stated time and again with this policy and it is a point that has *<b>NEVER</b>* been addressed by the authors of this policy we have to make a decision are
we in this for the consumer on the ground who needs the space today or are we in this to protect the interests of ISPs who either do not yet exist, or who have not been able to create sufficient infrastructure to utilize the space today. I argue that
AFRINIC is meant, under its mandate, to promote the penetration of Internet in Africa and this policy runs in direct contravention of said mandate since it slows down that development and will ultimately lead to additional costs that have to be born by
the consumer on the ground.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ultimately, I (and several others, I'm sure) are all for improving the Internet situation for the end user, be they my customer or someone else's.<br>
<br>
Despite our attempts at extending its longevity, IPv4 will run out, eventually. As operators, we need to balance the immediate need of solving our IPv4 requirements with preparations for an IPv6 Internet. AFRINIC's role in that balancing act is to pass a "Soft
Landing" policy proposal that effectively promotes such an agenda.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>