[kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Kevin Kamonye]

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 <Andrew.Alston at 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.tinka at seacom.mu]
> *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55
> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>; Kevin Kamonye <
> kevin.kamonye at gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>;
> Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at 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.
>
> Mark.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20161012/6c984403/attachment.htm>