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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3011 at
Fri Nov 25 14:44:11 UTC 2011

<I do work at LACNIC together with Sofia>

As Sofia clarified, LACNIC wants to use every opportunity available to
get the IPv6 message out to its members. Each time a member comes to us
to request additional IPv4 space is in fact a golden opportunity to do
this, so we basically try to make the most of it.

"Pushing" is probably too strong a word, and we definitely are not in
the business of dictating how organizations should run their networks.
However, we also have a duty towards our community, and if we are not
diligent enough in getting the message out, we risk leaving people out
in the cold.

Look at it from a different angle: What would be your reaction if in
5-years time you came to LACNIC asking for IPv4 space and we said "Ups,
it ran out 2 years ago, but we forgot to mention it" ?



On 11/25/11 11:30 AM, rbiramah at wrote:
> Sofia, should we understand that you keep allocating IPv6 prefixes to a member even the previous this member received are not being used? 
> iPi9
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sofía <sofia at>
> Sender: rpd-bounces at
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:53:20 
> To: <rpd at>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6
> 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
> PGP Key ID: 0xAAD4EB5F
> 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,
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at


Carlos M. Martinez

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list