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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Owen DeLong owen at
Sat Apr 28 01:48:16 UTC 2018

There are a number of problems with this:

1.	History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in order to obtain
	more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just makes a mess of
	the registry and registry related statistics.

2.	Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between an IPv4 allocation/assignment
	and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4 /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
	Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.

	IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and allocation boundaries that there
	simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good thing, but it means that what you are
	proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).

Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is not wanted?


> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at> wrote:
> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained. _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list