<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13009"><span></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_12891"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_12954" dir="ltr">Greetings Listers,</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13012" dir="ltr">Apologies for cross posting but just wanted to share this article I wrote sometimes back about "IPv6; The Inevitable Migration".</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13113" dir="ltr">Link: <a class="" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13116" href="https://bonfacewitaba.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/ipv6-transition-the-inevitable-migration/">https://bonfacewitaba.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/ipv6-transition-the-inevitable-migration/</a></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13126"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13279">Kind regards</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13294">Bonface Witaba<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13414" dir="ltr"><br></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13296" class="signature"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13415"> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13295"> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1476364904844_13297"> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>It does <font color="#0000ff">NOT </font>matter how <font color="#ff007f">SLOWLY</font> you <font color="#007f40">GO</font> so long as you do Not <font color="#ff007f">STOP</font>. --Confucious (Chinese Philosopher and Reformer)</div></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> On Thursday, 13 October 2016, 16:44, "kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke" <kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">Send kictanet mailing list submissions to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:kictanet-owner@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet-owner@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet-owner@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 (Kevin Kamonye)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:03:23 +0300<br>From: Kevin Kamonye <<a ymailto="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com" href="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com">kevin.kamonye@gmail.com</a>><br>To: Andrew Alston <<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>><br>Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a ymailto="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>>,<br> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <<a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>>,<br> Barrack Otieno <<a ymailto="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com" href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254<br>Message-ID:<br> <CACqJS+K1wLVm540WSHB35YbOj5kPvLA7zUcy4TTbu_xucPi=<a ymailto="mailto:RA@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:RA@mail.gmail.com">RA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Hi Andrew,<br><br>Your apparent passion and commitment to the migration reminds me of *Plato's<br>Cave *:) You have clearly seen the promised land of a native v6 world and<br>it is beautiful.<br><br>Now, am hardly poet but am forced to say the above in appreciation of the<br>amount of work that you have clearly put into this. You have also raised<br>some very high level points that I will need some more time to fully<br>research on. I do not have the answers at the moment.<br><br>First, I agree that the proposal of having a reserve block for new entrants<br>is the most rational way forward. Still, some of the reasons why I would<br>consider stopping the allocation of v4 are below.<br><br>1. These v4 IPs will eventually be exhausted anyway and the final goal is<br>to stop using the current addressing scheme completely<br><br>2. Every single v4 IP that is currently/ to be allocated will have to be<br>swapped eventually - more time and resources will be required<br><br>3. To expand on the above, this challenge grows exponentially with every<br>v4-only device that is sold (and this mostly happens in developing<br>countries)<br><br>4. There are RIRs that have long stopped v4 allocations (certainly not by<br>choice) and I believe there are still new entrants into those markets and<br>they still find a way to survive. Let us not underestimate human nature. A<br>good point in case is that the exhaustion of v4 has been *imminent* for a<br>long long long time.<br><br>?5. For consumers( I include users, developers, Systems/IP guys - all of<br>us), the costs also include the lost opportunities for better connections (<br>logical and social) and I can also add that we are also restricting<br>innovation.<br><br>Consider the below especially as regards to 4 & 5. ( I do not necessarily<br>agree with the simplistic opinions given by the author re ISPs as I know we<br>all have different values and priorities - but then again I did not want to<br>create any perception as being subjective on what content to highlight from<br>the article, being in the industry myself)<br>??<br>?"A lot of CGNs are being deployed. Some recent work I have been doing<br>shows that upward of 3% of IPv4 users present on a different source IPv4<br>address within 10 seconds?i.e. a minimum of 3% of users lie behind CGNs<br>with relatively aggressive address lease timeouts. Secondly, a lot of<br>shared Web hosting is being deployed. It is evidently commonplace to see<br>upward of *10,000* Web host environments co-existing on a *single host IP*<br>server address."?<br><br>??ISPs are playing their cards close to the vest, but it looks like many of<br>the ones that are planning to start rolling out IPv6 soon will be deploying<br>IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4 for new users. They're reluctant to change<br>anything for existing users, because the first rule of being an ISP is<br>"don't generate support calls." Providing broadband Internet access is a<br>very profitable business, but the profit generated by a customer evaporates<br>faster than you can say "have you tried rebooting your router?" when said<br>customer calls for support. ISPs that started deploying IPv6 in past years<br>had access to enough IPv4 addresses to give users their own along with a<br>range of IPv6 addresses. That is no longer true, or will no longer be true<br>as soon as ISPs use up their own stashes of IPv4 addresses.<br><br>The downside of NAT is that it only works well in one direction: from the<br>inside to the outside. When connections must be set up from the outside to<br>the inside, such as in the case of peer-to-peer audio or video<br>conferencing, additional logic is necessary to find a way to the right<br>internal system through the NAT. This is bad enough when two users are both<br>behind their own home NATs so that two NATs must be bypassed, but it gets<br>much worse as ISPs deploy CGNs, so now four NATs can be in the path. CGNs<br>also can't open up ports as easily as home NATs. As long as it's not<br>firewalled too severely, IPv6 has none of these issues; with 2^128<br>addresses there is no need for NAT. So it makes sense for ISPs to deploy<br>IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4. However, there are still ISPs that<br>pooh-pooh IPv6. Huston again: "The pessimistic view is that so far nothing<br>much has broken in IPv4-land, so there is still some more time left to do<br>nothing!"<br><br>Unless the ISPs that have been ignoring IPv6 plan to just keep their<br>existing customers and not sign up any new ones, those ISPs are still going<br>to be bitten by the IPv4 address exhaustion and will almost certainly be<br>forced to deploy CGN at some point. With no pressure relief valve in the<br>form of IPv6, all user traffic will have to flow through the CGN, which can<br>then easily become a bottleneck and a single point of failure. As a result,*<br>the quality of service delivered by different ISPs will diverge more and<br>more*, with the ones providing unshared public IPv4 addresses as well as<br>IPv6 doing the best and the ones using CGNs with relatively many users per<br>public IPv4 address and no IPv6 doing the worst.<br><br>The good news is that so far, the Internet has always managed to adapt just<br>before collapse was imminent. In the late 1980s, TCP congestion control<br>saved the Internet from massive congestion. In the 1990s, classless<br>interdomain routing and route flap damping kept the routers going. This<br>time we only have to turn on a feature that's been in our operating systems<br>for a decade and maybe replace an aging modem or two. Call me an optimist,<br>but I think it can be done. But only at the very last moment, of course.<br>(Source<br><<a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-running-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-running-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/</a>><br>)<br><br>?So yes v6 will happen with/out any drastic measures.<br><br>On the other hand, Africa finally has a chance to make a bold message that<br>I can consider to be at the scale of the burning of Ivory in Kenya.?<br><br>Before, stopping all allocations was impossible as the RIRs would never<br>have been able to convince their customers or even each other to do so. But<br>now that we are the only ones left with a substantive reserve of these<br>(potentially toxic) IPv4 resources, we could agree to start moving in the<br>other direction and let all the others follow this time. I would really be<br>pained to hear the inevitable statements (with very correct language of<br>course) that the reason v4 still exists is to accommodate the developing<br>world.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>*Kevin K.*<br>*+254720789158*<br><br>On 13 October 2016 at 10:00, Andrew Alston <<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>><br>wrote:<br><br>> Hi Kevin,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Just another further note on what I said below.<br>><br>><br>><br>> To quote from Dave Michaud from Rogers Communications yesterday on another<br>> list (used with kind permission of the author who waived Chatham house<br>> rules that exist on the list it was posted to allow me to quote this):<br>><br>><br>><br>> *Once we are done with this phase, we will start migrating some phones to<br>> IPv6-only operation. The transition will be executed per phone model by a<br>> logic implemented in a AAA server that is queried by the PGW when the<br>> PDP/PDN is established. The AAA decides based on IMEI if the phone should<br>> connect to the network using dual-stack or using IPv6-only with<br>> DNS64/CGN64.*<br>><br>><br>><br>> He further sent me the following:<br>><br>><br>><br>> *To clarify the v6-only service, we will be cherry picking devices for<br>> this service. Initially, it will be Samsung Galaxy S4, LG G4 and Nexus 5.<br>> After that, once we are comfortable, we will move more devices to IPv6-only<br>> operation (likely all newer Samsung, LG and Google/Nexus/Pixel devices).<br>> Moving forward, all new devices that we start selling will also be launched<br>> with IPv6-only.*<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Now ? what does this mean. Firstly, the days of dual-stack as the only<br>> means are over. There **IS** a move towards single-stack v6 with only<br>> translation to v4. I believe (but am open to correction) that t-mobile is<br>> doing the same thing. Secondly ? it emphasises the point of reserving a<br>> small block of space for new-comers that don?t have in order to facilitate<br>> the v6 -> v4 translation referred to above. Thirdly ? the implications of<br>> the above are? quite mind blowing ? because while NAT has certain ways to<br>> transverse back through it (UPNP etc) to enable certain applications to<br>> work ok behind standard v4 NAT, I am far from convinced the same will work<br>> with v6 to v4 NAT in the same manner. (Open to correction and would love<br>> to hear from someone more knowledgeable in this area). But what this means<br>> is ? if people aren?t running v6 and pretty fast ? life on the Internet is<br>> going to start getting really interesting ? because v6 single stack isn?t a<br>> thing for tomorrow ? it?s already happening.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Thanks<br>><br>><br>><br>> Andrew<br>><br>><br>><br>> *From:* Andrew Alston [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>]<br>> *Sent:* 13 October 2016 09:45<br>> *To:* Kevin Kamonye <<a ymailto="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com" href="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com">kevin.kamonye@gmail.com</a>><br>> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a ymailto="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>>;<br>> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <<a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>>; Barrack<br>> Otieno <<a ymailto="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com" href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>><br>><br>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254<br>><br>><br>><br>> Hi Kevin,<br>><br>><br>><br>> I don?t think completely stopping v4 allocations right now would have the<br>> impact we?re looking for. If you look at the policy proposal I?ve put<br>> forward, I propose a /13 reserved entirely for new comers, people who had<br>> zero space from anywhere before this. I think this is still an adequate<br>> number and sufficient, but it is also critical. The reason for this is<br>> that it allows sufficient space for entities to do NAT64 / DNS64 for<br>> translation to legacy equipment in a single-stack v6 environment. I still<br>> believe this will be necessary for a few years to come ? and I think the<br>> /13 reservation is sufficient.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I also think that at the rate of depletion ? we won?t actually be gaining<br>> much time by stopping, and as you say, there are other considerations we<br>> have to keep in mind. Rather than focusing on the financial<br>> considerations, we have to consider the fact that the space that was given<br>> to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure<br>> that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it<br>> they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that<br>> space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can<br>> comment).<br>><br>><br>><br>> What I?d like to see is a situation where those who need the v4 space<br>> today, for use on the continent, can get it, use it, and we deplete<br>> naturally. There is a lot of evidence that there is plenty of demand on<br>> the continent, and while some would say that large allocations indicate<br>> space flowing off the continent, I have yet to see any concrete evidence of<br>> this and in fact the allocation statistics seem to dispute this fact. (The<br>> majority of the really large allocations in recent months looking at the<br>> publically available data are tending to go to African countries that<br>> traditionally had far less space than other places, and an analysis of the<br>> BGP surrounding those allocations gives no indication that they have been<br>> moved off continent, though of course I say that BGP analysis and latency<br>> analysis of space to determine actual geographic location is a bit hit and<br>> miss and far from an exact science).<br>><br>><br>><br>> If we repeal the current soft landing policy and maintain a limited<br>> reservation strictly for new-comers (and I do believe a /13 is sufficient),<br>> this will achieve the necessary in my opinion. It will ensure the rapid<br>> depletion of v4 space on the continent, it will ensure that the space that<br>> is currently within AfriNIC is actually used for proper benefit, it will<br>> ensure that there is still space available for people who have absolutely<br>> none to use for single-stack v6 to v4 translation as necessary, and all in<br>> all, I believe that?s the best solution.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Thanks<br>><br>><br>><br>> Andrew<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> *From:* Kevin Kamonye [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com" href="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com">kevin.kamonye@gmail.com</a><br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com" href="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com">kevin.kamonye@gmail.com</a>>]<br>> *Sent:* 12 October 2016 18:36<br>> *To:* Andrew Alston <<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>><br>> *Cc:* Mark Tinka <<a ymailto="mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu" href="mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu">mark.tinka@seacom.mu</a>>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>>; General Discussions of AFRINIC <<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>>; Barrack Otieno <<a ymailto="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com" href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>><br>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254<br>><br>><br>><br>> Hi Andrew,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Solid points all round.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I had really not grasped it properly before, but I can now see how the<br>> concept of actually encouraging the rapid exhaustion of v4 would certainly<br>> be a game changer.<br>><br>><br>><br>> To take it further, would you say that STOPPING the allocation of v4<br>> starting NOW would have more impact? Of course this would have several<br>> downsides that would need to be mitigated. For instance, I can see that<br>> this would translate into financial challenges for Afrinic as they do rely<br>> (not sure about this) on the revenue from the sale of IPs to fund their<br>> operations. No one likes to lose money, not even a non-profit :)<br>><br>><br>><br>> I would really like to hear your thoughts on this.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Hi Mark, very true. v6 on mobile should be pretty much done by now. Also,<br>> I can already hear that the other big service providers are starting to<br>> stir due to this challenge from Liquid. Perhaps it will even turn into a<br>> race that makes us all winners.<br>><br>><br>><br>> @ Barrack - cheers mate.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Regards,<br>><br>><br>><br>> *Kevin K.*<br>><br>> *+254720789158*<br>><br>><br>><br>> On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston <<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom." href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.</a><br>> com> wrote:<br>><br>> Hi Mark,<br>><br>><br>><br>> In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space ? while I can?t<br>> comment on specifics, watch this space.<br>><br>><br>><br>> In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you?re referring<br>> to.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Thanks<br>><br>><br>><br>> Andrew<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> *From:* Mark Tinka [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu" href="mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu">mark.tinka@seacom.mu</a>]<br>> *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55<br>> *To:* Andrew Alston <<a ymailto="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>; Kevin Kamonye <<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com" href="mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com">kevin.kamonye@gmail.com</a>>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>><br>> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a ymailto="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>>;<br>> Barrack Otieno <<a ymailto="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com" href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>><br>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote:<br>><br>><br>><br>> On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have<br>> in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one<br>> in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing ?<br>> beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now,<br>> compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a<br>> vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at<br>> 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to **double** the aggregate<br>> penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH<br>> users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us<br>> down in getting v6 deployed.<br>><br>><br>> Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be<br>> enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have<br>> sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference.<br>><br>> A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also<br>> turned on IPv6.<br>><br>> The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space<br>> today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile<br>> operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen<br>> nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in<br>> Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan.<br>><br>> If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to<br>> enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in<br>> the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the<br>> mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest<br>> from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to<br>> spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6.<br>><br>> Mark.<br>><br>><br>><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20161013/c18f8c1a/attachment.html" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20161013/c18f8c1a/attachment.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>kictanet mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br><a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of kictanet Digest, Vol 113, Issue 30<br>*****************************************<br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>