Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

McTim dogwallah at
Thu Nov 24 17:44:28 UTC 2011

I think that douglas is correct. I also think that an rir should not be in
a position to dictate what protocols should be used by operators. Regards,

On Nov 24, 2011 8:12 PM, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at> wrote:

> Mark,
> If i get you right, then this policy would be:-
> 1. Requiring Members applying for v4 to apply for and be
> allocated/assigned v6 blocks as well
> 2. Requiring members to (somehow) demonstrate usage of their v6 blocks.
> Borrowing from my experience authoring the IPv4 Softlanding Policy,
> where similar ideas were advanced, i would say this would be
> "dictating to Members how to run their networks..." - To use the exact
> words used at the time.
> Now, unless the community's take on this has changed, I remember these
> points bringing alot of contention to the said Policy with the only
> option being for us to remove the whole tying v4
> allocation/assignment/usage to v6 (or the reverse) out of the Policy.
> So going  by the Community's feel at the time (which i doubt has
> changed much), i wouldn't say this makes sense....But maybe i am wrong
> on the community's perspective.
> Regards,
> --
> Douglas Onyango | +256(0712)981329 | Twitter: @ondouglas
> Life is the educator's practical joke in which you spend the first
> half learning, and the second half learning that everything you
> learned in the first was a joke.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list