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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

SM sm at
Thu Nov 24 18:13:07 UTC 2011

Hi Mark,
At 08:37 24-11-2011, Mark Elkins wrote:
>After listening at AfriNIC-15 and what happens in LACNIC - would it make
>sense to propose a policy that...

The LACNIC regions have some advantages over the AfriNIC 
region.  Take a look at its IPv6 mailing list ( ) 
and compare that to the afripv6-discuss mailing list ( ).

>Purpose - to promote IPv6
>In order for a resource member to get any new IPv4 resource - and they
>have no IPv6 resource - they must apply for an IPv6 resource as well.
>If the resource member asks for any new IPv4 resource - and they have
>any IPv6 resources older than four months of age - then the resource
>member must show that any of their existing IPv6 resources are in use
>either visible in the Routing Tables or the IPv6 resource must be
>provably in use (reachable via another Member), which would exclude
>anything in a testing environment.

There has been discussions on a previous proposal about a mandatory 
application for IPv6 resources in order to get IPv4 
resources.   There argument against that was that the RIR should not 
dictate a technical choice.

There are currently 179 IPv6 prefixes (the data used might be 
incorrect) which have been allocated/assigned which are not visible 
in the routing tables.  There aren't any statistics to determine the 
effectiveness of the fee policy for IPv6.


More information about the RPD mailing list