[kictanet] Status of IPv6 deployment in Kenya

[Odhiambo Washington]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:01, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/19/12, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Walu,
> >
> > What was the mandate of the Kenyan IPv6 Task Force? I hope it's not just
> > another boardroom Task Force.
> >
> > I saw the following on FaceBook yesterday:
> > "When Asia trained engineers Africa trained experts in debate. Can't fix
> > roads by simply organizing stakeholder consultations."It can be further
> > said that we can't fix IPv6 by simply appointing Task Forces.
>
> Tell that to the Koreans and Japanese, whose TFs have pushed them to
> to fore in v6 usage...a decade ago!
>
> In addition, AFNOG, et. al., have been training African engineers on
> v6 since 2005.
>
>
> > The adoption of IPv6 should be driven, first by need, then by the
> entities
> > responsible for assigning the IPs. I think it should be that simple. I
> > still don't see why it needed a Task Force.
>
> Because as yet there is no "perceived need".
>
> >
> > Let me look at this from the simplest terms:
> >
> > I think the pace of adoption does not have to be driven by pressure from
> > other sides of the planet, but by the RIRs,
>
> The RIRs HAVE been leading on this for over a decade.
>
> but still based on need. An RIR
> > may shout from the rooftops that they have depleted their IPv4 space, but
> > "allocation" and "assignment" are two different things, right?
>
> No RIR has yet exhausted their IP4v space completely.
>
>
> > They may be over with their allocation, while the entities allocated
> those
> > IPs haven't assigned all of them, and are still comfortable. Now, does
> the
> > RIR start forcing the entities (mostly ISPs) to start using their IPv6
> > allocations? No.
>
>
> As co-chair of the AfriNIC Policy Working Group, I would be happy to
> see you put forth a proposal to encourage v6 usage.   However, I don't
> see how "forcing" folks would work.  What "carrots" or "sticks" would
> you suggest?
>
>
McTim,

I'll only answer your last question about the "carrots" or "sticks".
When we form these WGs and TFs, we still do know who is supposed to
supposed to deploy an IP "on the ground". As long as that (let me call
him/her) deployer does not appreciate the need to even start using IPv6
even internally (with their network), it will still remain just a wish (for
the WGs and TFs) to see IPv6 penetration within their domain (read region).
I don't know what the Korean & the Japanese TFs did, but this being KE we
are talking about, the same tactics might or might not apply.
What the KE TF needs to do is to make the deployment agencies (ISPs,
Telcos) appreciate the need to deploy IPv6. Maybe an incentive from the
govt (BTW, who is more interested in seeing IPv6 being used? Govt or who?)
in some structured but open competition on IPv6 deployment where the
greatest deployment Team wins some fancy gizmos ("carrot"). The extent of
deployment should be quantifiable as being a major contributing factor
towards the "national goal/objective".

Sorry, I have more questions than answers.


-- 
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Nairobi,KE
+254733744121/+254722743223
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120319/6a8a3e34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120319/6a8a3e34/attachment.png>