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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Mon Jul 31 06:31:49 UTC 2017

On 30/Jul/17 23:58, Andre van Zyl wrote:

> As far as the /13 is concerned, I agree with you. 
> As far as the other two phases of this specific policy go, operators have known for years that IPv4 allocations would run out. Under phase one, allocations of up to /18 continue on a needs basis. Granted, that is not a lot of resources to build out IPv4 infrastructure on, but, it is plenty enough to deploy NAT64, dual-stack critical infrastructure etc. So, in light of the inevitable cliff that we all know is coming, if you are continuing to request IPv4 resources to use for maintaining the IPv4 status quo, then I really cannot help you. If you are requesting IPv4 resources to interconnect the IPv4 and IPv6 worlds, then I think that the /18 will go a long way towards that end. 

I, wholeheartedly, agree with this position.

While IPv4 allocations from the remaining AFRINIC pool would still be
handed out for "business-as-usual" situations, I'm more keen on a policy
that encourages that this is done - mostly - for the implementation,
distribution and operation of IPv6 and its related services within Africa.

> I really think that we have an opportunity to do things differently in this region, and that includes take the lead in v6 deployment. But that is only going to happen if operators, both existing and new, can feel confident that, at least while there are two simultaneous internets as your say, that they can come and go as they please between them, without undue financial burden.


>  I think some sort of policy that protects a portion of our last v4 resources to achieve that, is a step in the right direction.  

The idea of "protection" or "reservation" of address space for certain
functions (critical or otherwise) still causes a dull ache in my side.
From where I'm standing, any critical services in the future would need
to be on IPv6 instead, as that will, well, be the future, particularly
if it is a new service. Ensuring a critical service of the future is on
IPv4 first and foremost only negates progress toward IPv6.

Having said all that, rather than writing a "Soft Landing" proposal that
is similar to what other regions have implemented, perhaps we can learn
from the failings of the policy in those other regions, and fix those
areas for the AFRINIC region with a bias toward ensuring the proposal
promotes the deployment of IPv6, with a biased focus away from
maintaining the IPv4 status quo.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list