What I was proposing below is *VERY* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis does.

I have, and continue to, oppose this policy.  Because it will extend the life 
of v4 while we languish behind in terms of v6 deployment.  I’ve already stated 
in previous emails on this thread that there is a clear correlation between v6 
deployment and v4 depletion – and this proposal you reference slows v4 

I’ve also already stated there are organizations out there going v6 only with 
CGN64 / DNS64 to talk to the v4 internet – and that has big implications for 
people not running any v6 in the long term, negative implications.

Slowly the depletion of v4 does not help this continent – it hurts it – badly.  
Look at the global v6 deployment map – Africa’s v6 penetration levels by the 
latest APNIC reports are at 0.15% compared to a global average of 7.94% (And 
google puts global average at closer to 12%).  The difference? The rest of the 
world depleted v4 – Africa hasn’t – and the motivation isn’t there to deploy.

Every day we hold v4 space for general allocation is another day this continent 
falls further and further behind.  We need to be doing everything we can to 
*accelerate* v4 depletion – not slowing it down.

Btw – the reason I haven’t moved this discussion onto the policy list is 
because there are wider areas than just specific policies.  If we get into 
policy specific issues I’d rather go to the RPD list – but I do think ideas as 
to the acceleration of v4 depletion and the benefits and drawbacks behind it 
are very much a topic for discussion by the community.


From: Noah <>
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20
To: Andrew Alston <>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <>, Alan 
Barrett <>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" 
<<>> wrote:
>   Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that need 
> v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to prove 
> v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and announce 
> it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the project would 
> have to provide KPI’s etc etc.

+1 Andrew and I totally agree with you.

Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative...

I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.

Community-Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to