Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Willy,

Just as a matter of interest.

I deployed IPv6 to a university a few years ago (I think this was around 4 
years ago?) – end to end – every single host on the network with v6, and 
connecting to the outside world via a proxy server that was also v6 enabled.

Today – their v6 utilization by measurement of APNIC on that ASN is close to 
100% (Because they hit every single measurement point with v6).

It took a week to deploy the entire lot – but it does show what can be done.

See http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS37501

Thanks

Andrew


On 21/10/2016, 00:56, "Willy MANGA"  wrote:

Hi Kevin,

Le 11/10/2016 à 13:16, Kevin Kamonye a écrit :
> [...]
> *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:*
> *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if
> they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) *
> 
> *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have
> money to buy them)*
> *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that 
the
> IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way*
> *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to
> deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)*

 *e) Universities (through REN ?) will realise that they can't deploy on
their networks only IPv4. It's a shame (in my humble opinion) that our
universities don't see the need of IPv6. What about their research ?
what about study of new network behavior ? protocols ? How can they rely
on this deprecated protocol ? :-\
We forget that universities are the main place of research and
innovation ...

-- 
Willy Manga
freenode: ongolaBoy
Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team
https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Willy MANGA]

Hi Kevin,

Le 11/10/2016 à 13:16, Kevin Kamonye a écrit :
> [...]
> *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:*
> *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if
> they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) *
> 
> *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have
> money to buy them)*
> *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the
> IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way*
> *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to
> deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)*

 *e) Universities (through REN ?) will realise that they can't deploy on
their networks only IPv4. It's a shame (in my humble opinion) that our
universities don't see the need of IPv6. What about their research ?
what about study of new network behavior ? protocols ? How can they rely
on this deprecated protocol ? :-\
We forget that universities are the main place of research and
innovation ...

-- 
Willy Manga
freenode: ongolaBoy
Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team
https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Jackson Muthili]

> c.) The size of an ISP should have no impact on their prioritization
of V6 – in fact it is significantly easier for smaller organizations to
deploy v6 than it is for larger ones, due to far less infrastructure
changes and far less single change impact – and I do not believe for one
second that the size of an organization is an excuse for lack of v6
deployment – nor do I believe we should act as enablers for this behavior
by accepting that excuse.


   A very good point. Smaller ISPs are at a better advantage and should
waste no time moving to v6 up to last mile.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Honest –

Firstly, Liquid has done V6 and been V6 capable to provide to every client for 
the last 4 years – the only thing that changed was we enabled it to the mass 
consumer market, and in that regard, I believe we were first ☺

That being said, can you explain to me how you draw from that research that v4 
depletion has no impact on v6 update – because that is not stated in that slide 
deck at all.

What that slide deck does is look at a comparison of v6 update by country 
GDP….. and this is where it gets interesting:


a.) You can very safely assume that countries with higher GDP have higher 
penetration rates – therefore higher address utilization demands.  Which 
explains why by and large, higher GDP equates to higher v6 usage rates – which 
– by corollary indicates that v4 depletion combined with demand *does* have an 
impact on v6 deployment.  Basically the conclusions I get from that data are 
the complete opposite of what you are saying, and I would really like to 
understand how you get to your conclusions.

b.) The global maps clearly show that areas of run out have higher v6 
deployment rates – so again – that does not correlate with what you are saying.

c.) The size of an ISP should have no impact on their prioritization of V6 
– in fact it is significantly easier for smaller organizations to deploy v6 
than it is for larger ones, due to far less infrastructure changes and far less 
single change impact – and I do not believe for one second that the size of an 
organization is an excuse for lack of v6 deployment – nor do I believe we 
should act as enablers for this behavior by accepting that excuse.

I’m open to hearing how I have mis-read the slide deck you gave me – but right 
now – as I say, I cannot for a second fathom how you came to your conclusions 
because in my mind, that data strongly contradicts what you have said.

Andrew

From: Honest Ornella GANKPA 
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 12:20
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

It is good to see that Liquid Telecom has joined Seacom and others who have 
been doing their best to advance IPv6 deployment in the continent without 
waiting for IPv4 depletion.

This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet which 
makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake.  In fact, I am 
surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the way because the 
data was from Akamai which I hear he works for.  Please see attached slide.  
The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC meeting - 
http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0

In the Afrinic meeting in Botswana, I learned from the Softlanding-BIS proposal 
presentation that almost 90% of those with resources are in the micro to very 
small category.  This means that these people are unlikely to prioritise IPv6 
so we need to find the motivation for IPv6 growth elsewhere.   Even when they 
get allocations, they depend on their upstreams to route these addresses.

My suggestion is that the Afrinic community organises itself better and builds 
on the small successes in the region.  We can target more key stakeholders like 
bigger ISPs and telcos, regulators, NRENs, government networks who can make the 
difference.

It is not about Africa being last.  We need to look at the realities honestly 
and act as a community.


Honest Ornella GANKPA



2016-10-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 sergekbk 
mailto:serge...@gmail.com>>:
Yes Andrew.
"The Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC” policy covers all 
allocated/assigned resources.

See 
http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic";

With Regards.

Serge Ilunga
Cell: +243814443160
Skype: sergekbk
R.D.Congo
 Original message 
From: Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>
Date: 10/14/2016 21:17 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO mailto:jbmill...@gmail.com>>, 
Omo Oaiya mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

Just a question about the audit policy….

Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 
assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based 
policy rules?

Andrew


From: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO mailto:jbmill...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14
To: Omo Oaiya mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>, Andrew 
Alston mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


Thank a lot Omo.
Audit policy  will helps us to figure out where the numbers end

Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" 
mailto:omo.oa.

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[sergekbk]

Yes Andrew. "The Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC” policy covers all 
allocated/assigned resources. 

See 
http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic";
With Regards.
Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo Original 
message From: Andrew Alston  Date: 
10/14/2016  21:17  (GMT+01:00) To: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO , 
Omo Oaiya  Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
 Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 
254 


Just a question about the audit policy….
 
Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 
assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based 
policy rules?
 
Andrew
 
 

From: 
Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO 

Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14

To: Omo Oaiya 

Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Andrew 
Alston 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


 

Thank a lot Omo.

Audit policy  will helps us to figure out where the numbers end
Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya"  a écrit :

>

>

> On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston  
> wrote:

>>

>> Heh,

>>

>>  

>>

>> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to give 
>> stats to the list – at least make them accurate.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, 
>> which is 33% below what you claim in your email below.

>>

>>  

>

>

> Is it? 

>

> whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 
> 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'

>

>  

>>

>> Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it 
>> (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South 
>> African internet exchanges.  *Shrug*

>>

>>  

>

>

> I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point however 
> was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. 

>

> I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary 
> is often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of disclaimers.

>

> -Omo

>

>

> ___

> Community-Discuss mailing list

> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

>

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Frank Habicht]

On 10/14/2016 3:39 PM, Noah wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2016 15:23, "Saul Stein"  > wrote:
>> As things stand:
>>
>> 1)  AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space
> 
> I doubt AFRINIC is in the business of making money.

and nobody said that.

Frank

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Just a question about the audit policy….

Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 
assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based 
policy rules?

Thanks

Andrew


From: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO 
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14
To: Omo Oaiya 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Andrew 
Alston 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


Thank a lot Omo.
Audit policy  will helps us to figure out where the numbers end

Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" 
mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>> a écrit :
>
>
> On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston 
> mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Heh,
>>
>>
>>
>> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to give 
>> stats to the list – at least make them accurate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, 
>> which is 33% below what you claim in your email below.
>>
>>
>
>
> Is it?
>
> whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net<http://whois.afrinic.net> -r -T aut-num -T 
> inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'
>
>
>>
>> Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it 
>> (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South 
>> African internet exchanges.  *Shrug*
>>
>>
>
>
> I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point however 
> was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary.
>
> I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary 
> is often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of disclaimers.
>
> -Omo
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO]

Thank a lot Omo.
Audit policy  will helps us to figure out where the numbers end

Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya"  a écrit :
>
>
> On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston <
andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Heh,
>>
>>
>>
>> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to
give stats to the list – at least make them accurate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11,
which is 33% below what you claim in your email below.
>>
>>
>
>
> Is it?
>
> whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og
'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'
>
>
>>
>> Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it
(shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South
African internet exchanges.  *Shrug*
>>
>>
>
>
> I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point
however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not
necessary.
>
> I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your
commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of
disclaimers.
>
> -Omo
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Kevin Kamonye]

Omo, if it is noise to you then just ignore the thread.

Perhaps you really need to get that every single v4 IP that is issued
potentially means *10-1 users behind NAT and CGNs.

And since am not a part of the BoD I will tell you freely that I don't like
people who are not challenged by the image of Africa always being last.

Sent on mobile

On Oct 14, 2016 9:27 PM, "Omo Oaiya"  wrote:

>
> On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston  om> wrote:
>
>> Heh,
>>
>>
>>
>> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to
>> give stats to the list – at least make them accurate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11,
>> which is 33% below what you claim in your email below.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Is it?
>
> whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og
> 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'
>
>
>> Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it
>> (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South
>> African internet exchanges.  **Shrug**
>>
>>
>>
>
> I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point
> however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not
> necessary.
>
> I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your
> commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of
> disclaimers.
>
> -Omo
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Omo,

I apologise, I missed one in the database.  My mistake and I’m willing to admit 
when I make a mistake and I’m wrong – in this case I surely was.

The rest of the email though stands – and you’re welcome to verify all the 
other percentages.

They can be verified at:
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
and http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6

Sorry for the mistake though above, I was doing a manual search on the database 
file that I’d ftp’d and some how missed something ☺

Hope to hear from you on the challenge though! Would love to see you leading by 
example on the v6!

Andrew

From: Omo Oaiya 
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 21:25
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Omo Oaiya , Noah , General 
Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
Heh,

We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to give 
stats to the list – at least make them accurate.

Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which 
is 33% below what you claim in your email below.


Is it?

whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net<http://whois.afrinic.net> -r -T aut-num -T 
inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'

Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it 
(shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African 
internet exchanges.  *Shrug*


I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point however 
was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary.

I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is 
often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of disclaimers.

-Omo

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Omo Oaiya]

On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston 
wrote:

> Heh,
>
>
>
> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to
> give stats to the list – at least make them accurate.
>
>
>
> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11,
> which is 33% below what you claim in your email below.
>
>
>

Is it?

whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og
'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC'


> Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it
> (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South
> African internet exchanges.  **Shrug**
>
>
>

I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.  The point
however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not
necessary.

I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary
is often inappropriate and unbecoming  regardless of disclaimers.

-Omo
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Heh,

We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation – but if you’re going to give 
stats to the list – at least make them accurate.

Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which 
is 33% below what you claim in your email below.

Some interesting things about this space though.  The majority of it 
(shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African 
internet exchanges.  *Shrug*

If they could meet the policy requirements to get the space – and we the 
community don’t like the fact that they have it – we have only one group of 
people to blame, ourselves, because we didn’t change the policies.  The 
community has no place to complain if someone meets the policy that they did 
not change.

I still stand by my opposition of the soft-landing-biz policy, if we want to 
make changes to the actual ip allocation policies to ensure space is used 
adequately, great, but I oppose anything that stops organizations that 
legitimately need the space getting whatever space they can *legitimately use 
on the continent*

And quite frankly – if the AfriNIC pool depletes – we’re all better off because 
we’ll get off our asses and do what we should be doing – deploying IPv6.

It is sickening that there is *ONE* country on the continent with a V6 
penetration level higher than 0.6% (Zimbabwe, 4.92% as of latest stats), two 
that are higher than 0.4% (Sudan is after Zimbabwe, at 0.59%), and only 7 other 
countries on the entire continent in the top 100 in terms of penetration rates 
worldwide (Botswana (0.38%),  Egypt (0.26%), South Africa (0.23%), Tanzania 
(0.10%), Cameroon (0.06%), Rwanda (0.05%) and Kenya (0.02%)).  Africa’s V6 
penetration levels as a combined total sit at 0.15%.

And the argument about lack of infrastructure and lack of normal internet 
penetration holds negative water – because the lower the amount of 
infrastructure and internet penetration in the country the easier it is to 
swing the pendulum for v6 as percentage of penetration.

While we sit and watch *massive* providers (T-Mobile and Rogers to name two) 
going *v6 only* other than for translation purposes to v4 – which will cause 
huge problems for people who have no v6 for various reasons, we sit and worry 
about depleting v4?  While the global stats CLEARLY demonstrate that v4 
depletion = accelerated v6 deployment (using APNIC stats: Americas = 17.19%, 
Europe = 11.87%, Oceania = 6.49%, Asia = 4.02%, ALL have run out, Africa which 
still has v4 = 0.16%)

And lets look at those stats above, Americas, the majority is in North America 
with no soft landing and a hard run out = 17.19%, Europe, which had a soft 
landing and is still handing out /22 under it = 11.87%, Oceania/Asia (both 
under APNIC rules) at 6.49% and 4.02% have limited allocations because of 
restrictions in place since 15th April 2011 and additional space since 27th May 
2014.

What does this indicate – no v4 space = v6 deployment.  And yeah, I know, we 
can argue that well, soft landing has helped spur it in Europe and Asia to a 
degree – that’s true, and soft landing in Africa may help us spur it – but spur 
it is not what we need right now – we are already running at a penetration 
level of 0.16% as against a global average of 12% - what we need is a flat out 
end of space and people to wake up and go and do v6 instead of talking about it.

I’ve also heard the argument that the bigger providers can worry about v6 and 
the smaller ones can have the v4 – that’s been stated at meetings many times.  
Well, guess what, speaking from a bigger provider perspective, we’ve *DONE* 
that, and it’s actually far more difficult for a large provider to do that than 
it is for a small provider because the amount of infrastructure change and 
network modification to retro-fit v6 to a large network is well… larger.

So, I want to issue a challenge for every single person who is supporting 
tightening the rules on IPv4 and putting the soft landing policy in place.  
What are the ASN’s *YOU* are running IPv6 on, put them on the list, and let us 
see you leading by example in V6 rollouts before attempting to change the rules 
for v4 for the rest of the continent.

I’ll start, our primary ASN with v6 behind it is AS30969.  It has over 10 
thousand /48s in the whois database, and according to APNIC statistics pushes 
in excess of 20% v6 penetration levels.

Who’s going to stand up next?

Andrew

From: Omo Oaiya 
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 18:39
To: Noah 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254


On 14 October 2016 at 12:39, Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> wrote:

> 4)  We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption
>

True story.

>
> Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it.
>

No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding.

There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out 

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Omo Oaiya]

On 14 October 2016 at 12:39, Noah  wrote:

> > 4)  We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6
> adoption
> >
>
> True story.
>
> >
> > Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need
> it.
> >
>
> No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding.
>
> There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out there.
>
> Noah
>

I don't understand the hoohah about depletion.   Even apparently real cloud
companies are depleting what's left pretty fast.

According to September stats, Cloud Innovation just got another /11 so now
has a total of 3 /11 with zero IPv6 and no ASN.  Go figure!

-Omo
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Noah]

On 14 Oct 2016 15:23, "Saul Stein"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>

Hi Saul

> As things stand:
>
> 1)  AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space
>

I doubt AFRINIC is in the business of making money.

What i understand is that for the organisation to sustain itself and
continue with its mandate, it needs to collect membership fees from those
who use number resources to run its operations and maily the
machinery/human capital.

What is also clear to me is that in the eventual deletion on IPv4 space,
those holding and using resources will still pay the price for them. IPv6
allocations which is currently not billed  shall be valued post IPv4 era.

So in terms of organisation sustainability, number resources usage
IPv4/IPv6 and ASN coupled with cost cutting will come in handy.

> 2)  If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there’d be a
political uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to
update its financial model ASAP
>

Sounds like propaganda to me.

> 3)  As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren’t
going to do extra work and migrate to v6
>

True story.

> 4)  We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption
>

True story.

>
> Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need
it.
>

No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding.

There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out there.

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Saul Stein]

Hi,

Here are some interesting points.



As things stand:

1)  AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space

2)  If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there’d be a political 
uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to update its 
financial model ASAP

3)  As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren’t 
going to do extra work and migrate to v6

4)  We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption



So why not let v4 be used up naturally?

Why when asking for v4 space (and justifying it) to the afrinic staff reply 
with: “and in consideration to the policy principle of conservation” The 
policy for allocations is for another topic)



If the ISP/LIR has a requirement for the v4 space to be used on the 
continent, give it to them:

a)  Its earns AFRINIC much needed revenue (this enables training, 
research and other important project)

b)  Facilitates the natural rundown of v4 space

c)   Ultimately will employ more people on the continent as Kevin points 
out, you’ll now be duplicating work



Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it.





From: Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 14 October 2016 01:36 PM
To: Noah 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254



Noah,



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 depletion.



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.



Andrew





From: Noah < <mailto:n...@neo.co.tz> n...@neo.co.tz>
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20
To: Andrew Alston < <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> 
andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC < <mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net> 
community-discuss@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett < 
<mailto:alan.barr...@afrinic.net> alan.barr...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254



On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" < 
<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> 
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...

 
<http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis>http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bisI
 believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.Noah___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Noah,

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 
depletion.

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.

Andrew


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" 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> 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...

http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis

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

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Kevin Kamonye]

Hi Andrew,

This new idea looks promising. It seems to be within Afrinic's obligations
as defined by the community(if passed)/IANA, and it also accelerates the
'exhaustion' of our v4 resources in a manner that does not create
unnecessary delays.

Noah, yes, the soft-landing policy you are referring leans heavily in this
direction and I would fully support it if its gains a clear majority. My
understanding of it, however, is that it is not pretty much the same thing.
It is still very open-ended and provides a chance for us to be stuck with
v4 much longer than need be.

Following the extreme idea of stopping allocations now, perhaps the already
allocated resources could sustain the continent say for at least two years
-  a long time considering for instance, how many v4-only devices are being
sold to knowing/unknowing consumers every single day. So, whose soft
landing are we referring to here.

Placing a majority of the remaining address space into the fund (trust)
means that they are not easily available for allocation to commercial
parties (OUR requirements could be served within a community-defined and
extensively communicated time frame of which I will say even just 6 months
would be enough) and we therefore do not have to all wait on the others to
provide the required impetus.


Regards,

*Kevin K.*
*+254720789158*

On 14 October 2016 at 13:20, Noah  wrote:

> 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...
>
> http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis
>
> I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.
>
> Noah
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Honest Ornella GANKPA]

+1 Noah

I will add that rather than discussing random topics uncoordinated, this
discussion should be moved to rpd list. The sooner we reach concensus and
adopt this soft landing policy, the sooner we can move forward / focus on
ipv6 deployment. The status quo benefits no one in my opinion

Honest Ornella GANKPA



2016-10-14 11:20 GMT+01:00 Noah :

> 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...
>
> http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis
>
> I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.
>
> Noah
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Noah]

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...

http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis

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

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Kevin Kamonye]

has always managed to adapt just
before collapse was imminent. In the late 1980s, TCP congestion control
saved the Internet from massive congestion. In the 1990s, classless
interdomain routing and route flap damping kept the routers going. This
time we only have to turn on a feature that's been in our operating systems
for a decade and maybe replace an aging modem or two. Call me an optimist,
but I think it can be done. But only at the very last moment, of course.
(Source
<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-running-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/>
)

​So yes v6 will happen with/out any drastic measures.

On the other hand, Africa finally has a chance to make a bold message that
I can consider to be at the scale of the burning of Ivory in Kenya.​

Before, stopping all allocations was impossible as the RIRs would never
have been able to convince their customers or even each other to do so. But
now that we are the only ones left with a substantive reserve of these
(potentially toxic) IPv4 resources, we could agree to start moving in the
other direction and let all the others follow this time. I would really be
pained to hear the inevitable statements (with very correct language of
course) that the reason v4 still exists is to accommodate the developing
world.

Regards,

*Kevin K.*
*+254720789158*

On 13 October 2016 at 10:00, Andrew Alston 
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
> *Sent:* 13 October 2016 09:45
> *To:* Kevin Kamonye 
> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC ;
> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions ; 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 sufficient.
>
>
>
> 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 considerat

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Noah]

On 13 Oct 2016 21:18, "Owen DeLong"  wrote:
>
>
> In terms of 5.4.7.1, I would support a proposal to return that /12 to the
general free pool.
>

I would leave it alone as is.

> Owen
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Looking at other posts from elsewhere,

There was an idea proposed which I REALLY liked – which would achieve multiple 
objectives:


Basically – we could look at creating an “African Internet Fund” that does not 
have MONEY in it – but does have a large block of IP space in it (potentially 
as much as a /9 – sufficient to deplete the pool enough that it changes the 
dynamics in the region while still ensuring that the space stays available).

At that point, the African Internet Fund is run by a group of individuals, 
elected and/or appointed – and they are tasked with deciding how this space 
will be used and granted.  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.  Basically the same way that 
funding from donor organizations work, just with IP space.

The primary task of the AIF would be to determine that the application met 
developmental objectives for the continent and was a worthwhile project, and 
benefitted end users – rather than just ISP’s.

This ensures that a.) space stays on the continent b.) we don’t sit with large 
amounts of v4 space that is taking forever to deplete c.) the space is being 
used by worthy causes and d.) it promotes v6 through depletion of v4.

Very curious to hear community thoughts on something like this – personally I 
love the idea.

Thanks

Andrew


On 13/10/2016, 16:11, "Alan Barrett"  wrote:


> On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston  
wrote:
> 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).

Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might 
think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which 
the RIRs decide what to do.  I would not like to find out what happens if 
AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a 
dispute to court.  I’d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 
space under policies developed by the community.

At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy 
manual 

 reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the 
policy changes, or the Board takes action:

[[[
5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve
 
5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. 
This /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, 
as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with 
certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in 
reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 
addresses.
 
5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address 
space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board 
may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time 
replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) 
that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best 
interest of the community.
]]]

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Owen DeLong]

I certainly support modifying this provision at this point.

I think that the idea that “innovation” will occur (or should be encouraged) in 
IPv4 at this point is counterproductive at best.

I’ve always felt that 5.4.7.2 was at best a harmless and useless provision 
unlikely to ever be used and at worst a misleading pipe dream that the life of 
IPv4 can somehow be artificially extended by the AfriNIC board.

In terms of 5.4.7.1, I would support a proposal to return that /12 to the 
general free pool.

Owen

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Alan Barrett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston  
>> wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might 
> think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which 
> the RIRs decide what to do.  I would not like to find out what happens if 
> AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a 
> dispute to court.  I’d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 
> space under policies developed by the community.
> 
> At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy 
> manual 
> 
>  reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the 
> policy changes, or the Board takes action:
> 
> [[[
> 5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve
> 
> 5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This 
> /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as 
> yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with 
> certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in 
> reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 
> addresses.
> 
> 5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space 
> (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may 
> at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time 
> replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) 
> that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best 
> interest of the community.
> ]]]
> 
> Alan Barrett
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Alan Barrett]

> On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston  
> wrote:
> 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).

Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might 
think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which 
the RIRs decide what to do.  I would not like to find out what happens if 
AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a 
dispute to court.  I’d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 
space under policies developed by the community.

At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy 
manual 

 reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the 
policy changes, or the Board takes action:

[[[
5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve
 
5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This 
/12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as 
yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty 
what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just 
in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses.
 
5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space 
(from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at 
its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time 
replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) 
that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best 
interest of the community.
]]]

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

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.

Thanks

Andrew

From: Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 13 October 2016 09:45
To: Kevin Kamonye 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions ; 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 
sufficient.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

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 
sufficient.

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 
solution.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 October 2016 18:36
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Mark Tinka ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 
; General Discussions of AFRINIC 
; Barrack Otieno 
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 
changer.

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.

Regards,

Kevin K.
+254720789158

On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston 
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.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu<mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>]
Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55
To: Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>; 
Kevin Kamonye mailto:kevin.kamo...@gmail.com>>; 
KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 
mailto:kicta...@lists.kictanet.or.ke>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>; Barrack 
Otieno 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 

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Leo Vegoda]

Andrew Alston wrote:

[...]

> There is one problem with your argument here - and I agree with you in 
> one sense.  In the home user market the users don't need to know - and 
> that’s what we did in our rollout in the home user market.
> 
> The corporate side is NOT like that - you HAVE to communicate with them 
> for simple reasons:
> 
> A.) In many corporates you don't control the CPE - unless you're doing fully 
> managed service.  This means they have to change things on their CPE to 
> route the v6 through.
> 
> B.) Corporates run firewalls - firewalls have to have v6 rulesets and have 
> to be configured
> 
> C.) Corporates run internal network infrastructure - often with multiple 
> vlans etc - this requires configuration.

I think the only thing we disagree on is where the transition happens. In my 
experience, the overwhelming proportion of businesses are genuinely tiny, 
ranging from an individual to a dozen people. And even when businesses grow 
larger they can often buy packaged hosted services and tie everything together 
with the cheapest Internet access they can buy. Lots of businesses buy and use 
services designed for the residential market instead of higher quality 
"corporate" services. 

Regards,

Leo Vegoda


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

Leo,

There is one problem with your argument here - and I agree with you in one 
sense.  In the home user market the users don't need to know - and that’s what 
we did in our rollout in the home user market.

The corporate side is NOT like that - you HAVE to communicate with them for 
simple reasons:

A.) In many corporates you don't control the CPE - unless you're doing fully 
managed service.  This means they have to change things on their CPE to route 
the v6 through.
B.) Corporates run firewalls - firewalls have to have v6 rulesets and have to 
be configured
C.) Corporates run internal network infrastructure - often with multiple vlans 
etc - this requires configuration.

So yes - home user you can turn on and off it can go - this is *exactly* what 
we did to turn Zimbabwe green on the v6 map. Corporates are a far far more 
tricky story, and there you actually have to put in some work.

Andrew


-Original Message-
From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.veg...@icann.org] 
Sent: 12 October 2016 16:51
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

Andrew Alston wrote:

[...]

> If we truly want v6 adoption, I’d argue we are going about it the wrong way, 
> we have to promote it into the corporate and home user market.  Only when 
> these markets start demanding IPv6 will we get true movement from the 
> majority of providers

I disagree. If the home user market needs to know or care about which version 
of the Internet Protocol is being used, or even know what the Internet Protocol 
is, things have gone wrong. Some parts of the corporate market do need to know 
but not most small and medium sized businesses. They just buy packaged services 
and can legitimately expect them to work as expected.

The providers on the list at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ with 
the big IPv6 deployments didn't survey their residential customers and ask them 
which version of IP they'd prefer. They made IPv6 an integral component of 
their systematic network upgrade. 

Regards,

Leo Vegoda
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Leo Vegoda]

Andrew Alston wrote:

[...]

> If we truly want v6 adoption, I’d argue we are going about it the wrong way, 
> we have to promote it into the corporate and home user market.  Only when 
> these markets start demanding IPv6 will we get true movement from the 
> majority of providers

I disagree. If the home user market needs to know or care about which version 
of the Internet Protocol is being used, or even know what the Internet Protocol 
is, things have gone wrong. Some parts of the corporate market do need to know 
but not most small and medium sized businesses. They just buy packaged services 
and can legitimately expect them to work as expected.

The providers on the list at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ with 
the big IPv6 deployments didn't survey their residential customers and ask them 
which version of IP they'd prefer. They made IPv6 an integral component of 
their systematic network upgrade. 

Regards,

Leo Vegoda


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Andrew Alston]

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.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55
To: Andrew Alston ; Kevin Kamonye 
; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 

Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; Barrack 
Otieno 
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 NAT4 than it is to roll out IPv6.

Mark.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Mark Tinka]

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 NAT4 than it is to
roll out IPv6.

Mark.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss