On 6/26/16 9:21 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Logan,
> At 08:39 26-06-2016, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>> The encouragement does not need to come directly from the government,
>> but rather the government engaging ISPs like Mauritius Telecom and Emtel
>> for their Innovation framework in terms of getting them onboard for the
>> IPv6/IPv4 transition. Emtel, Orange and the other ISPs are the one
>> building the "roads" for Internet of things "vehicles".
>
> I have attended a few "national" conferences which were
> internet-related. I didn't see anyone from Emtel giving a
> presentation. I agree that it would be a positive step if there is
> engagement with Mauritius Telecom and Emtel to get those two companies
> on board. I doubt that the other ISPs currently have the customer
> base or anything innovative to offer.
[Replying in my personal capacity]
I would argue that if the smaller ISPs have more flexibility to innovate
with IPv6 due to their smaller customer base.
>
>> I have spoken to businesses who are interested in offering "Camera
>> Surveillance as a service". I've been told that they are looking at the
>> IP usage as they are looking for public IPv4 for each of them. In the
>> face of depleting IPv4 address space, they are talking to their
>> suppliers regarding the "Ipv6-readiness" of those devices.
>
> Ok.
>
>> I personally believe that Mauritius can learn from the failures of IPv6
>> transition in the US, such as purely dynamic IPv6 address from comcast,
>> which cause end-users issues. I believe that /48 static IPv6 is the
>> proper way forward, via a mechanism like DHCPv6 Prefix delegation for
>> Fiber/copper cable links. For cellular networks, I believe that 464xlat
>> looks like a good solution forward in the face of no ipv4 addresses
>> left, and still maintaining connectivity to content available only over
>> IPv4.
>
> I was not in favour of static IPv6 prefixes for residential users as
> there are privacy implications. I have not been following the
> discussions about cellular networks lately; I am aware of the Android
> issue though. The considerations for cellular networks are different
> from the ones for FTTH.
>
I think that static IPv6 prefixes work better with the majority of
applications that work on IPv6. Most haven't been designed with purely
dynamic IPv6 like comcast. However, I agree with you, that privacy is
important, and perhaps the way forward is fixing applications that don't
work well with purely dynamic IPv6 assignments.
However, I would tend to favour an IPv6 solution like DHCPv6-PD (with a
/48) that would work with with existing applications, and wouldn't cause
too many users to call the ISP for support right now.
464xlat is not as good as dual stack, but we need a solution when we get
dangerously close to IPv4 exhaustion, and I think that for cellular
networks, this is close to dual stack in terms of user experience.
>> I would be happy to engage with the local Internet communities during
>> AFRINIC-25.
>
> Ok. :-)
>
>> I take your suggestion of calling them "digital content providers" into
>> account. Depends on their audience. lexpress.mu also has traffic from
>> outside from Mauritius. Those are usually Mauritians who are living in
>> other countries:
>> It has around 7.8% of its traffic from France, and 6.7% of its traffic
>> from the UK, according to alexa(
>> http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/lexpress.mu).
>
> According to web site, 27% of its visitors are from outside Mauritius.
Thank you. Can you mention your source please ?
>
>> A better example would wikipedia I suppose ?
>
> I would choose www.facebook.com. The latency can be between 75 ms to
> 318 ms or more.
>
Are you using a tunnel to HE ?
75ms through ipv4 ?
318ms through ipv6 ?
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
Received on Sun Jun 26 2016 - 18:05:02 PST