<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Dabu Sifiso <<a href="mailto:dabu.sifiso@yandex.com">dabu.sifiso@yandex.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Ornella GANKPA <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a>>, rpd <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div> </div><div> </div><div>04.01.2018, 08:00, "Ornella GANKPA" <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a>>:</div><div>How?</div><div>It encourages CGNAT and IPv4 transfer by not giving AFRINIC IPv4 that is needed to those who need it.</div><blockquote type="cite"><p>Why would anyone disagree with that?</p></blockquote><div><br>People did, we didn't listen and believed those saying they were acting for the good of Africa, we were duped.</div><div> </div><blockquote type="cite"><p>Is IPv6 not the common sense optionfor any growth plan?</p></blockquote><div> </div><div>It stopped being a realistic alternative in 1999, turned into a running gag by 2009, and will only be revived once there is no IPv4 to distribute, could it be happening in 2019, or do we have to wait until 2029!</div></blockquote></span><div><br></div><div>What do you mean?</div><div>IPv6 works fine, even great, for mobile providers. 85% of Reliance/Jio users in India, 80% of Verizon Wireless users in the U.S., and 87% of T-Mobile users in the US, use IPv6. <a href="http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements">http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements</a>/</div><div>I think all of them are using NAT64 and 464xlat to get to IPv4.</div><div><br></div><div>IPv6 is great for fixed line connectivity, too, with tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of people having IPv6 access. Most of them are still dual-stack, but some use IPv6 plus a transition mechanism. I’m happy to help with that.</div><div><br></div><div>My experience and observation are that it takes 2-5 years for an ISP to deploy IPv6. Separate projects are: backbone routing, peering, data center routing, firewalls, updating provisioning and management (OSS) systems, edge devices (CMTS, BRAS, ONU), and CPE. For me, updating systems took years. Updating CPE may take the longest for others: you might start delivering IPv6 capable CPE to customers in a month, but it’s unlikely your current CPE supports the transition mechanism you want to use.</div><div><br></div><div>More than 21% of the world uses IPv6. It’s not a joke. The questions we are each asking ourselves are:</div><ol><li>How long will it take us to deploy IPv6?</li><li>Do we have enough IPv4 addresses to last that long?</li></ol><div>I think many of the differences of opinion on the soft landing revision were between people who had different answers to those questions. If someone answers “No” to #2, their options are:</div><ul><li>Try to buy addresses (once the IPv4 Resources transfer policy is implemented, if they haven’t received addresses in a year, and if they can find someone selling exactly their 12 month need) </li><li>Use CGN/NAT44, if they can deploy it in time (again: routing, OSS, etc.)</li><li>Stop growing. </li></ul><div>Are there other options?</div><div><br></div><div>Lee Howard</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>