On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote:

> On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that
> have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels.  One is Sudan,
> and one in Zimbabwe.  Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and
> climbing – beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real
> penetration.  Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is
> depleted, and you see a vastly different picture.  The global average
> deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to
> **double** the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6
> enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe.  This speaks
> volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed.

Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be
enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac
have sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference.

A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also
turned on IPv6.

The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space
today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile
operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither
seen nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network
operator in Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan.

If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to
enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement
in the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as
if the mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no
interest from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is
cheaper to spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to
roll out IPv6.

Community-Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to