October 2016 - KICTANet

Fwd: Call for Applications! | 2016 GAIA AgTech Innovation Challenge
by Thomas Kaberi 21 Oct '16

21 Oct '16

<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> * CALL FOR APPLICATIONS! Do you have a big idea that could transform agriculture AND AGRIBUSINESS* * in East Africa? * *2016 GAIA AgTech Innovation Challenge * African food and agribusiness will be powered by innovation, especially that which closes the gender gap. To be impactful, this innovation in should focus on improved technologies and new business models that greatly benefit women value chain actors. We are pleased to announce that Gender in Agribusiness Investments in Africa (GAIA) is now accepting applications from institutions and enterprises for the 2016 GAIA AgTech Innovation Challenge. GAIA has been launched by AWARD <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> to increase agribusiness investments in technological and business model innovations that benefit African women value chain actors.* Do you have a big idea that has been piloted successfully in East Africa that focuses on:* 1. *Closing yield gaps in crop and livestock value chains* 2. *Reducing post-harvest losses* 3. *Improving agri-market efficiencies* We are looking for institutions and business enterprises with innovations spanning the research-to-commercialization continuum, and those addressing business model re-invention. Innovations should contribute towards transforming agricultural practices in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania for improved incomes and food security for smallholder farmers, especially women. The AgTech innovations should demonstrate clear benefits to women smallholder farmers, and other women value chain actors. They should be scalable across multiple geographies in sub-Saharan Africa. *APPLY HERE! <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Jmf4zzgHf4CMOnRTUeOrlAoOnEZg5JUAj9C7WhM3PHhx…> * *Deadline: 28th October* Submissions will be evaluated on a rolling basis until 28th October 2016. Early submissions are encouraged, and winners will be notified on 31st October 2016. *ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA * AWARD GAIA is looking for enterprises that: - Are in the *agriculture* or allied sectors, with an innovative technology or business model - Are *women-led* or have *women managers* - Have a clear *for-profit business model* with high potential for scale - Have some* proof of concept* on the ground, conducted pilots and are preferably generating revenues - Have an experienced, credible and dedicated *founding team* - Are *looking for funding* to commercialize/scale - Have operations in either of the following countries *Ethiopia, Ke**nya, Uganda *or* Tanzania* * The top 20 companies will be chosen from the applicants to participate in an in-depth boot camp, and then be showcased to investors, incubators, and other support organizations in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2016. The goal of this challenge is to support promising women working in agriculture to refine their business model, and help connect them to additional key players in the agriculture sector.* * For any inquiries, please contact: AWARDGAIA(a)cgiar.org <AWARDGAIA(a)cgiar.org> * Intellecap is a pioneer in providing innovative business solutions that help build and scale profitable and sustainable enterprises dedicated to social and environmental change. Founded in 2002, Intellecap has grown into a Group with more than 900 employees and 300 engagements across 25 countries. AWARD is a career-development program that since 2008 has, through tailored fellowships, equipped top women agricultural scientists across sub-Saharan Africa to accelerate agricultural gains by strengthening their science and leadership skills. Intellecap, Tetezi Towers, Ground Floor, At the corner of George Padmore Road & Marcus Garvey Road, Nairobi, Kenya SafeUnsubscribe™ thomaskaberi(a)optimal.co.ke <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001caDoJUKU90Y2iUCR3j_e9A%3D%…> Forward this email <http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=xaq4swcab&m=1102417215511&ea=…> | Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=001caDoJUKU90Y2iUCR3j_e9A%3D%…> | About our service provider <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/service-provider?cc=about-service-prov…> Sent by arielle.molino(a)intellecap.net in collaboration with [image: Constant Contact] <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_News_252> Try it free today <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_News_252> -- Most Diligently, Optimal Consulting I Managing Partner Business Development Consultants in: Customer focus, Process Re-engineering & Business Intelligence. For: SMEs, Projects & Start-ups. M2 Tower 1 The Mirage Westlands Chiromo Rd Nairobi 52921-00100 I Office: 0739 99 99 77 I Cell: +254 721 849 647 www.optimal.co.ke skype: thomaskaberi Office:* +254 716 903 869* Cell: *+254 721 849 647* *My LinkedIn Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=88861691&trk=nav_responsive_tab_pr…>* *Truth Lives Forever.* This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Warning: Although the sender has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments

1 0

Livestream: 5th AfIGF 16-18 Oct, Durban
by Kawsu Sillah 16 Oct '16

16 Oct '16

Dear Colleagues, Apologies for cross-posting. The 5th meeting of the African Internet Governance Forum, is currently underway in Durban, South Africa. For those of you interested to participate remotely, please join using the link Livestreaming: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/zndcZASeqKJ You can as well interact with hanlde @AfrIGF and hashtag #afigf #afigf2016 on Twitter. See you there! Best, Kawsu. Youth@AfIGF2016. -- Best Regards, [image: --] Kawsu Sillah [image: https://]about.me/ksillah <https://about.me/ksillah?promo=email_sig> AMBASSADOR <https://ideas.itu.int/page/view/933> ITU Telecom World Young Innovators Competition. Mobile : +220 9865300 | 6865300 | 3965300 Skype: profkawsu | Facebook: Kawsu.f.Sillah <https://www.facebook.com/kawsu.f.sillah> Twitter: @ksillah1 | LinkedIn: KAWSU SILLAH <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=103784437&trk=nav_responsive_tab_p…> *‘Every single person must have access to a computer, must understand it, must have access to good software and good teachers and to the Internet, so that every person will have the opportunity to make the most of his or her own life’ – Bill Clinton, the former US President.*

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Share Data with Location-based Social Media Surveillance Startup
by Stephanie Muchai 15 Oct '16

15 Oct '16

Very interesting convo & engagement. Good spirit and thoughtful responses Ebele, keep em coming 👍 My question for FB - how does FB usually ensure that these type of folks use the "publicly available" info they gather for the specific use assigned? Maybe you've answered this on the thread and I missed it. Does the developer store the info they gather or no? Is it just "accessed" on FB for a set time? If they do store it, or even just are able to store it - what happens in countries with no data protection laws on gathering/use/storage of data? Thanks, Steph. On 14 Oct 2016 19:27, "Anderson Levi via kictanet" < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Ngigi, has hit the nail on the head. Everything else is "white noise". If access to the API equals access to 'public' info then why all this... On 14 Oct 2016 18:35, "Ebele Okobi via kictanet" < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > This is not a legal issue. It's against the rules of Facebook's developer > agreement for someone to pose as a commercial developer and then sell > information it gathered based upon APIs targeting publicly available > information to police. None of this is illegal-it's just really creepy and > against our terms. > > In answer to your last question, absolutely not. > > Ebele Okobi | Public Policy Director, Africa > > m. +44 (0) 771 156 1315 <+44%20(0)%20771%20156%201315> > > 10 Brock Street | London | NW1 3FG > > ebeleokobi(a)fb.com > > [image: 6F376569-CC77-422B-BAD3-794055B1E02B] > > On Oct 14, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Ngigi Waithaka via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > Ebele, > > There is something about this that I am not understanding. > > If the APIs only allows a developer to access *publicly* available > information that is in the FB Platform, why would it be illegal for law > enforcement / intelligence to even access it? > > It can *only* be a problem if the API allows accessing *private > *information from FB users. > > Which then brings us to an even *bigger problem*; is FB allowing > developers to access our private information and messaging on FB for > commercial purposes? > > Regards > Sent from Nylas N1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nylas.com_n1-3Fref-3Dn…>, > the extensible, open source mail client. > > On Oct 12 2016, at 8:58 pm, Ebele Okobi via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > >> Yes-this is a mess, and this article isn't an accurate report. >> Basically-this was a private company that set itself up as a developer-same >> as, say, Candy Crush makers or those quiz things about your friends on FB. >> As a developer, it got access to API (see here >> http://readwrite.com/2013/09/19/api-defined/ >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__readwrite.com_2013_09_1…> >> for definition) that allowed it to build programs into FB. This allowed it >> to write programs targeting publicly available information on FB platform. >> That means-no private chats, no private groups, no data that users haven't >> made publicly available. The point of APIs in this context is SUPPOSED to >> be so advertisers (from small business to nonprofits to Andela, etc.) can >> send ads to targeted users. This group completely violated our policies and >> used their API access to target publicly available info to send to police. >> FB has kicked them off our platform. As you can imagine, there are many >> conversations now about this. But key to know that FB did NOT and does not >> sell user data; that this was a completely unauthorized use of our >> developer platform, that we rectified this as soon as we were notified, >> that the access was not to user data, but essentially a program that >> allowed them to target public info on Facebook. It's still unacceptable, >> and something we are taking extremely seriously. >> >> Ebele Okobi | Public Policy Director, Africa >> >> m. +44 (0) 771 156 1315 <+44%20(0)%20771%20156%201315> >> >> 10 Brock Street | London | NW1 3FG >> >> ebeleokobi(a)fb.com >> >> [image: 6F376569-CC77-422B-BAD3-794055B1E02B] >> >> On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet < >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: >> >> *The ACLU of California has obtained records showing that Twitter, >> Facebook, and Instagram provided user data access to Geofeedia, a developer >> of a social media monitoring product that we have seen marketed to law >> enforcement as a tool to monitor activists and protesters. We are pleased >> that after we reported our findings to the companies, Instagram cut off >> Geofeedia’s access to public user posts, and Facebook has cut its access to >> a topic-based feed of public user posts.* >> >> More here: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/facebook-instagram- >> and-twitter-provided-data-access-surveillance-product-marketed >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.aclu.org_blog_free…> >> >> -- >> *Ahmed Maawy* >> Executive Director - SwahiliBox / M-Power (CBO) >> Curator - Global Shapers Mombasa Hub >> Ambassador - Open Knowledge >> Director - Startup Grind Mombasa >> Software Developer - AJ+ / EveryLayer >> (KE) +254 714 960 627 >> Skype: ultimateprogramer >> >> swahilibox.co.ke >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__swahilibox.co.ke&d=DQMF…> >> globalshapers.org >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__globalshapers.org&d=DQM…> >> www.okfn.org >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__okfn.org_&d=DQMFaQ&c=5V…> >> startupgrind.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__startupgrind.com&d=DQMF…> >> ajplus.net >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ajplus.net&d=DQMFaQ&c=5…> >> www.everylayer.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.everylayer.com_&d=D…> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.k >> ictanet.or.ke_mailman_listinfo_kictanet&d=DQICAg&c=5VD0RTtNl >> Th3ycd41b3MUw&r=ArvepG4_wcNu_X9xi3nb_Xa9WsGLVfmK6mwPdVONOTE >> &m=GhVvdCFxDu4EVUb8ylng2LCvR_0IBt5-yhOx6fQy7Ss&s=tY_FmWozK9w >> ITxf0Wi2mSTnAJ3IESBY7WT33HlgqAYs&e= >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://urldefense.proofpoint. >> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.kictanet.or.ke_mailman_options_ >> kictanet_ebeleokobi-2540fb.com&d=DQICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd >> 41b3MUw&r=ArvepG4_wcNu_X9xi3nb_Xa9WsGLVfmK6mwPdVONOTE >> &m=GhVvdCFxDu4EVUb8ylng2LCvR_0IBt5-yhOx6fQy7Ss&s=LAZLJsuQHbk >> 66IPOo4JjXcmrto5E92ncpWcgmoqMezk&e= >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform >> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and >> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT >> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, >> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do >> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.k > ictanet.or.ke_mailman_listinfo_kictanet&d=DQICAg&c=5VD0RTtNl > Th3ycd41b3MUw&r=ArvepG4_wcNu_X9xi3nb_Xa9WsGLVfmK6mwPdVONOTE > &m=ugY2LOWQPr3HVkgrJeaJsIdXO902T0vxQWS5mgsAFco&s=5KQ0kjo_b_z > KYnrfDlbXMxNWBMO4uHnw2HqVcuLCJ8E&e= > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://urldefense.proofpoint. > com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.kictanet.or.ke_mailman_options_ > kictanet_ebeleokobi-2540fb.com&d=DQICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd > 41b3MUw&r=ArvepG4_wcNu_X9xi3nb_Xa9WsGLVfmK6mwPdVONOTE > &m=ugY2LOWQPr3HVkgrJeaJsIdXO902T0vxQWS5mgsAFco&s=X_tF31OCt2Q > lFIrtrPehmR6XUsvLv9oYXdda5f5vllg&e= > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > ailman/options/kictanet/anderson.levi%40gmail.com > > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/stephmuchai%40gmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

3 2

Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Share Data with Location-based Social Media Surveillance Startup
by Ahmed Mohamed Maawy 14 Oct '16

14 Oct '16

*The ACLU of California has obtained records showing that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provided user data access to Geofeedia, a developer of a social media monitoring product that we have seen marketed to law enforcement as a tool to monitor activists and protesters. We are pleased that after we reported our findings to the companies, Instagram cut off Geofeedia’s access to public user posts, and Facebook has cut its access to a topic-based feed of public user posts.* More here: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-provid… -- *Ahmed Maawy* Executive Director - SwahiliBox / M-Power (CBO) Curator - Global Shapers Mombasa Hub Ambassador - Open Knowledge Director - Startup Grind Mombasa Software Developer - AJ+ / EveryLayer (KE) +254 714 960 627 Skype: ultimateprogramer swahilibox.co.ke globalshapers.org www.okfn.org <http://okfn.org/> startupgrind.com ajplus.net www.everylayer.com

8 13

Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254
by Kevin Kamonye 14 Oct '16

14 Oct '16

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 <noah(a)neo.co.tz> wrote: > On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston(a)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(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >

1 0

Kenya Electoral Assistance Program: Innovation Grants for Electoral Support
by Mildred Achoch 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Dear Listers, This may be of interest to some: https://www2.fundsforngos.org/democracy-and-good-governance/kenya-electoral… Regards, Mildred. Check out the Rock 'n' roll film festival, Kenya TV Channel! http://kenyarockfilmfestivaljournal.blogspot.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 113, Issue 30
by Bonface Witaba 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Greetings Listers,Apologies for cross posting but just wanted to share this article I wrote sometimes back about "IPv6; The Inevitable Migration".Link: https://bonfacewitaba.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/ipv6-transition-the-inevitab… Kind regardsBonface Witaba It does NOT matter how SLOWLY you GO so long as you do Not STOP. --Confucious (Chinese Philosopher and Reformer) On Thursday, 13 October 2016, 16:44, "kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke" <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Send kictanet mailing list submissions to kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke You can reach the person managing the list at kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 (Kevin Kamonye) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:03:23 +0300 From: Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>, KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Message-ID: <CACqJS+K1wLVm540WSHB35YbOj5kPvLA7zUcy4TTbu_xucPi=RA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Andrew, Your apparent passion and commitment to the migration reminds me of *Plato's Cave *:) You have clearly seen the promised land of a native v6 world and it is beautiful. Now, am hardly poet but am forced to say the above in appreciation of the amount of work that you have clearly put into this. You have also raised some very high level points that I will need some more time to fully research on. I do not have the answers at the moment. First, I agree that the proposal of having a reserve block for new entrants is the most rational way forward. Still, some of the reasons why I would consider stopping the allocation of v4 are below. 1. These v4 IPs will eventually be exhausted anyway and the final goal is to stop using the current addressing scheme completely 2. Every single v4 IP that is currently/ to be allocated will have to be swapped eventually - more time and resources will be required 3. To expand on the above, this challenge grows exponentially with every v4-only device that is sold (and this mostly happens in developing countries) 4. There are RIRs that have long stopped v4 allocations (certainly not by choice) and I believe there are still new entrants into those markets and they still find a way to survive. Let us not underestimate human nature. A good point in case is that the exhaustion of v4 has been *imminent* for a long long long time. ?5. For consumers( I include users, developers, Systems/IP guys - all of us), the costs also include the lost opportunities for better connections ( logical and social) and I can also add that we are also restricting innovation. Consider the below especially as regards to 4 & 5. ( I do not necessarily agree with the simplistic opinions given by the author re ISPs as I know we all have different values and priorities - but then again I did not want to create any perception as being subjective on what content to highlight from the article, being in the industry myself) ?? ?"A lot of CGNs are being deployed. Some recent work I have been doing shows that upward of 3% of IPv4 users present on a different source IPv4 address within 10 seconds?i.e. a minimum of 3% of users lie behind CGNs with relatively aggressive address lease timeouts. Secondly, a lot of shared Web hosting is being deployed. It is evidently commonplace to see upward of *10,000* Web host environments co-existing on a *single host IP* server address."? ??ISPs are playing their cards close to the vest, but it looks like many of the ones that are planning to start rolling out IPv6 soon will be deploying IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4 for new users. They're reluctant to change anything for existing users, because the first rule of being an ISP is "don't generate support calls." Providing broadband Internet access is a very profitable business, but the profit generated by a customer evaporates faster than you can say "have you tried rebooting your router?" when said customer calls for support. ISPs that started deploying IPv6 in past years had access to enough IPv4 addresses to give users their own along with a range of IPv6 addresses. That is no longer true, or will no longer be true as soon as ISPs use up their own stashes of IPv4 addresses. The downside of NAT is that it only works well in one direction: from the inside to the outside. When connections must be set up from the outside to the inside, such as in the case of peer-to-peer audio or video conferencing, additional logic is necessary to find a way to the right internal system through the NAT. This is bad enough when two users are both behind their own home NATs so that two NATs must be bypassed, but it gets much worse as ISPs deploy CGNs, so now four NATs can be in the path. CGNs also can't open up ports as easily as home NATs. As long as it's not firewalled too severely, IPv6 has none of these issues; with 2^128 addresses there is no need for NAT. So it makes sense for ISPs to deploy IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4. However, there are still ISPs that pooh-pooh IPv6. Huston again: "The pessimistic view is that so far nothing much has broken in IPv4-land, so there is still some more time left to do nothing!" Unless the ISPs that have been ignoring IPv6 plan to just keep their existing customers and not sign up any new ones, those ISPs are still going to be bitten by the IPv4 address exhaustion and will almost certainly be forced to deploy CGN at some point. With no pressure relief valve in the form of IPv6, all user traffic will have to flow through the CGN, which can then easily become a bottleneck and a single point of failure. As a result,* the quality of service delivered by different ISPs will diverge more and more*, with the ones providing unshared public IPv4 addresses as well as IPv6 doing the best and the ones using CGNs with relatively many users per public IPv4 address and no IPv6 doing the worst. The good news is that so far, the Internet 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-run…> ) ?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 <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com> 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.Alston@liquidtelecom.com] > *Sent:* 13 October 2016 09:45 > *To:* Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; > KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; Barrack > Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> > > *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 v4 translation as necessary, and all in > all, I believe that?s the best solution. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com > <kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com>] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 18:36 > *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com> > *Cc:* Mark Tinka <mark.tinka(a)seacom.mu>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> > *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 <Andrew.Alston@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@seacom.mu] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55 > *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com>; Kevin Kamonye < > kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; > Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)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. > > >

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254
by Kevin Kamonye 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Hi Andrew, Your apparent passion and commitment to the migration reminds me of *Plato's Cave *:) You have clearly seen the promised land of a native v6 world and it is beautiful. Now, am hardly poet but am forced to say the above in appreciation of the amount of work that you have clearly put into this. You have also raised some very high level points that I will need some more time to fully research on. I do not have the answers at the moment. First, I agree that the proposal of having a reserve block for new entrants is the most rational way forward. Still, some of the reasons why I would consider stopping the allocation of v4 are below. 1. These v4 IPs will eventually be exhausted anyway and the final goal is to stop using the current addressing scheme completely 2. Every single v4 IP that is currently/ to be allocated will have to be swapped eventually - more time and resources will be required 3. To expand on the above, this challenge grows exponentially with every v4-only device that is sold (and this mostly happens in developing countries) 4. There are RIRs that have long stopped v4 allocations (certainly not by choice) and I believe there are still new entrants into those markets and they still find a way to survive. Let us not underestimate human nature. A good point in case is that the exhaustion of v4 has been *imminent* for a long long long time. 5. For consumers( I include users, developers, Systems/IP guys - all of us), the costs also include the lost opportunities for better connections ( logical and social) and I can also add that we are also restricting innovation. Consider the below especially as regards to 4 & 5. ( I do not necessarily agree with the simplistic opinions given by the author re ISPs as I know we all have different values and priorities - but then again I did not want to create any perception as being subjective on what content to highlight from the article, being in the industry myself) "A lot of CGNs are being deployed. Some recent work I have been doing shows that upward of 3% of IPv4 users present on a different source IPv4 address within 10 seconds—i.e. a minimum of 3% of users lie behind CGNs with relatively aggressive address lease timeouts. Secondly, a lot of shared Web hosting is being deployed. It is evidently commonplace to see upward of *10,000* Web host environments co-existing on a *single host IP* server address." ISPs are playing their cards close to the vest, but it looks like many of the ones that are planning to start rolling out IPv6 soon will be deploying IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4 for new users. They're reluctant to change anything for existing users, because the first rule of being an ISP is "don't generate support calls." Providing broadband Internet access is a very profitable business, but the profit generated by a customer evaporates faster than you can say "have you tried rebooting your router?" when said customer calls for support. ISPs that started deploying IPv6 in past years had access to enough IPv4 addresses to give users their own along with a range of IPv6 addresses. That is no longer true, or will no longer be true as soon as ISPs use up their own stashes of IPv4 addresses. The downside of NAT is that it only works well in one direction: from the inside to the outside. When connections must be set up from the outside to the inside, such as in the case of peer-to-peer audio or video conferencing, additional logic is necessary to find a way to the right internal system through the NAT. This is bad enough when two users are both behind their own home NATs so that two NATs must be bypassed, but it gets much worse as ISPs deploy CGNs, so now four NATs can be in the path. CGNs also can't open up ports as easily as home NATs. As long as it's not firewalled too severely, IPv6 has none of these issues; with 2^128 addresses there is no need for NAT. So it makes sense for ISPs to deploy IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4. However, there are still ISPs that pooh-pooh IPv6. Huston again: "The pessimistic view is that so far nothing much has broken in IPv4-land, so there is still some more time left to do nothing!" Unless the ISPs that have been ignoring IPv6 plan to just keep their existing customers and not sign up any new ones, those ISPs are still going to be bitten by the IPv4 address exhaustion and will almost certainly be forced to deploy CGN at some point. With no pressure relief valve in the form of IPv6, all user traffic will have to flow through the CGN, which can then easily become a bottleneck and a single point of failure. As a result,* the quality of service delivered by different ISPs will diverge more and more*, with the ones providing unshared public IPv4 addresses as well as IPv6 doing the best and the ones using CGNs with relatively many users per public IPv4 address and no IPv6 doing the worst. The good news is that so far, the Internet 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-run…> ) 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 <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com> 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.Alston@liquidtelecom.com] > *Sent:* 13 October 2016 09:45 > *To:* Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; > KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; Barrack > Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> > > *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 v4 translation as necessary, and all in > all, I believe that’s the best solution. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye@gmail.com > <kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com>] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 18:36 > *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com> > *Cc:* Mark Tinka <mark.tinka(a)seacom.mu>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> > *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 <Andrew.Alston@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@seacom.mu] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55 > *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com>; Kevin Kamonye < > kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; > Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)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. > > >

1 0

Three problems choking Africa’s technology entrepreneurs
by Mbugua Njihia 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

The proper way to build a business is to figure out how to sustainably scratch a perpetual itch and in Africa we have no shortage of opportunities or brains that apply themselves toward that pursuit. As technology fashioned by Africa’s techpreneurs continues to be produced and taken to market, there are three issues that that I have identified as stifling their ability to take root and grow, outside of capital and talent - http://www.mbuguanjihia.com/business/three-problems-choking-africas-technol… *Regards,* Mbugua Njihia | +254721668709 Entrepreneur in pursuit of opportunities without regard to resources currently controlled #WhatIsNext #AfricaRising ᐧ

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254
by Kevin Kamonye 12 Oct '16

12 Oct '16

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(a)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@seacom.mu] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55 > *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston(a)liquidtelecom.com>; Kevin Kamonye < > kevin.kamonye(a)gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net>; > Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)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. >

1 0