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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

Sofía sofia at
Fri Nov 25 10:53:20 UTC 2011

Dear all,

I just wanted to clarify that we are not "pushing" anyone and that we
are not "dictating to Members how to run their networks". The proposals
I mentioned (LAC-2011-02 and LAC-2011-3. just
establish that the applicant has to request an IPv6 block in case they
don't already have one.

The proposal that applies to additional requests says that if the
applicant already has an IPv6 block, they have to send us a report
explaining what they are doing with IPv6, but we won't reject any
request in case the report says "we are not doing anything". At least
they will take a few minutes to think about it when writing this report.

Kind regards,

Ing. Sofía Silva Berenguer
Registration Services Area
Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry

El 24/11/11 15:03, Douglas Onyango escribió:
> 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,

More information about the RPD mailing list