Hi Kevin,

Just another further note on what I said below.

To quote from Dave Michaud from Rogers Communications yesterday on another list 
(used with kind permission of the author who waived Chatham house rules that 
exist on the list it was posted to allow me to quote this):

Once we are done with this phase, we will start migrating some phones to 
IPv6-only operation. The transition will be executed per phone model by a logic 
implemented in a AAA server that is queried by the PGW when the PDP/PDN is 
established. The AAA decides based on IMEI if the phone should connect to the 
network using dual-stack or using IPv6-only with DNS64/CGN64.

He further sent me the following:

To clarify the v6-only service, we will be cherry picking devices for this 
service. Initially, it will be Samsung Galaxy S4, LG G4 and Nexus 5. After 
that, once we are comfortable, we will move more devices to IPv6-only operation 
(likely all newer Samsung, LG and Google/Nexus/Pixel devices). Moving forward, 
all new devices that we start selling will also be launched with IPv6-only.

Now – what does this mean.  Firstly, the days of dual-stack as the only means 
are over.  There *IS*  a move towards single-stack v6 with only translation to 
v4.  I believe (but am open to correction) that t-mobile is doing the same 
thing.  Secondly – it emphasises the point of reserving a small block of space 
for new-comers that don’t have in order to facilitate the v6 -> v4 translation 
referred to above.  Thirdly – the implications of the above are… quite mind 
blowing – because while NAT has certain ways to transverse back through it 
(UPNP etc) to enable certain applications to work ok behind standard v4 NAT, I 
am far from convinced the same will work with v6 to v4 NAT in the same manner.  
(Open to correction and would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable in 
this area).  But what this means is – if people aren’t running v6 and pretty 
fast – life on the Internet is going to start getting really interesting – 
because v6 single stack isn’t a thing for tomorrow – it’s already happening.



From: Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 13 October 2016 09:45
To: Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamo...@gmail.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions <kicta...@lists.kictanet.or.ke>; Barrack Otieno 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

Hi Kevin,

I don’t think completely stopping v4 allocations right now would have the 
impact we’re looking for.  If you look at the policy proposal I’ve put forward, 
I propose a /13 reserved entirely for new comers, people who had zero space 
from anywhere before this.  I think this is still an adequate number and 
sufficient, but it is also critical.  The reason for this is that it allows 
sufficient space for entities to do NAT64 / DNS64 for translation to legacy 
equipment in a single-stack v6 environment.  I still believe this will be 
necessary for a few years to come – and I think the /13 reservation is 

I also think that at the rate of depletion – we won’t actually be gaining much 
time by stopping, and as you say, there are other considerations we have to 
keep in mind.  Rather than focusing on the financial considerations, we have to 
consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to 
the serve the people, and I’m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop 
allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under 
which they were given that space.  (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with 
more insight can comment).

What I’d like to see is a situation where those who need the v4 space today, 
for use on the continent, can get it, use it, and we deplete naturally.  There 
is a lot of evidence that there is plenty of demand on the continent, and while 
some would say that large allocations indicate space flowing off the continent, 
I have yet to see any concrete evidence of this and in fact the allocation 
statistics seem to dispute this fact.  (The majority of the really large 
allocations in recent months looking at the publically available data are 
tending to go to African countries that traditionally had far less space than 
other places, and an analysis of the BGP surrounding those allocations gives no 
indication that they have been moved off continent, though of course I say that 
BGP analysis and latency analysis of space to determine actual geographic 
location is a bit hit and miss and far from an exact science).

If we repeal the current soft landing policy and maintain a limited reservation 
strictly for new-comers (and I do believe a /13 is sufficient), this will 
achieve the necessary in my opinion.  It will ensure the rapid depletion of v4 
space on the continent, it will ensure that the space that is currently within 
AfriNIC is actually used for proper benefit, it will ensure that there is still 
space available for people who have absolutely none to use for single-stack v6 
to v4 translation as necessary, and all in all, I believe that’s the best 



From: Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 October 2016 18:36
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu<mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>>; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions 
<kicta...@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kicta...@lists.kictanet.or.ke>>; General 
Discussions of AFRINIC 
<community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>; Barrack 
Otieno <otieno.barr...@gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barr...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

Hi Andrew,

Solid points all round.

I had really not grasped it properly before, but I can now see how the concept 
of actually encouraging the rapid exhaustion of v4 would certainly be a game 

To take it further, would you say that STOPPING the allocation of v4 starting 
NOW would have more impact? Of course this would have several downsides that 
would need to be mitigated. For instance, I can see that this would translate 
into financial challenges for Afrinic as they do rely (not sure about this) on 
the revenue from the sale of IPs to fund their operations. No one likes to lose 
money, not even a non-profit :)

I would really like to hear your thoughts on this.

Hi Mark, very true. v6 on mobile should be pretty much done by now. Also, I can 
already hear that the other big service providers are starting to stir due to 
this challenge from Liquid. Perhaps it will even turn into a race that makes us 
all winners.

@ Barrack - cheers mate.


Kevin K.

On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston 
<andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>]
Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55
To: Andrew Alston 
Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamo...@gmail.com<mailto:kevin.kamo...@gmail.com>>; 
KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
<community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>; Barrack 
Otieno <otieno.barr...@gmail.com<mailto: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