Hi Mark,

In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space - while I can't comment on 
specifics, watch this space.

In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you're referring to.



From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55
To: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>; Kevin Kamonye 
<kevin.kamo...@gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>; Barrack 
Otieno <otieno.barr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

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