[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[aleruchi chuku]

Hello Alain

 
Thirdly, a review of this policy will at the long run, work against the deployment of IPV6



Can you elaborate this point a little bit more ?

My argument is that the review of the policy is not helping in the rapid deployment of IPV6. Rather we are emphasizing on the depleted IPV4 and this is not helping anyone. Therefore, I feel we should stick with the original policy and see to the rapid deployment of IPV6.

Cheers
Aleruchi

    On Saturday, April 28, 2018, 12:31:43 PM GMT+1, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:  
 
 Hi 


On 27 Apr 2018, at 09:37, aleruchi chuku <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com> wrote:
Members,
I am of the opinion that the original Soft Landing Policy be maintained. 


Ack.


First, it aligns with the soft landing policy of other regions which is in continuous use.


While the idea of  soft landing following the global soft landing policy on the IANA v4 pool was accepted in most regions,each region adopted its own mechanisms for distributing ressources from the last /8
https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2017-04/#2-6

Secondly the waiting period of 24months (5.4.6. Allowable limits) is detrimental to the growth of the internet and affect growth of member communities.



Noted.  This has been debated. The  revision list  and the list archives can tell how it went.



Thirdly, a review of this policy will at the long run, work against the deployment of IPV6



Can you elaborate this point a little bit more ?

Thanks  for your contribution
—Alain


Aleruchi
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180428/607f4e54/attachment-0001.html>