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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

aleruchi chuku aleruchichuku at
Wed May 9 07:50:18 UTC 2018

 Dear All

It is quite clear from the mailing list responses (which by the way is much larger than the meeting in Dakar) that this proposed policy is Doomed to fail as the very community that will be required to use it, is not making any positive progress on the policy.

Therefore as we discuss it in Dakar, we should consider discarding this policy and make progress in areas that will help us to deplete the remaining IPv4 quickly and bring in the deployment of IPv6 to the fore.

It is important that we remove any personal attachment to the policy and push for ideas that will benefit the general community.

My Opinion is simply that maintaining the previous soft landing policy is the best thing to do. 


    On Sunday, May 6, 2018, 1:07:05 PM GMT+1, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:  
 #yiv0353456688 #yiv0353456688 -- _filtered #yiv0353456688 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0353456688 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0353456688 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv0353456688 #yiv0353456688 p.yiv0353456688MsoNormal, #yiv0353456688 li.yiv0353456688MsoNormal, #yiv0353456688 div.yiv0353456688MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0353456688 a:link, #yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0353456688 a:visited, #yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0353456688 p.yiv0353456688msonormal0, #yiv0353456688 li.yiv0353456688msonormal0, #yiv0353456688 div.yiv0353456688msonormal0 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688gmail- {}#yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688gmail-hoenzb {}#yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0353456688 span.yiv0353456688EmailStyle22 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0353456688 .yiv0353456688MsoChpDefault {font-family:sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv0353456688 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv0353456688 div.yiv0353456688WordSection1 {}#yiv0353456688 
So – in your email below you *acknowledge* that there are issues that remain unaddressed.
You stated that CLEARLY in your email below – that right there – proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that consensus is impossible – because the definition of consensus states that ALL issues have been addressed – it does not limit that to those who issues you feel like addressing – nor does it limit those issues you must address to the people who like or the people who disagree with you.
Thank you for confirming in a single email that you acknowledge there is no consensus – much appreciated
From: Komi Elitcha [mailto:kmw.elitcha at]
Sent: 06 May 2018 11:45
To: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
Good day Owen,
Please see few comments below.
2018-05-01 23:31 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at>:

> On Apr 28, 2018, at 14:27, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at> wrote:
> The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and forth, as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at very sharp and deep divides. The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not ready to shift grounds, in this regard can we answer the following:
> 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy of this nature?

The policy currently on the books is less objectionable than the current proposal. While many of us who oppose this proposal would like to see it repealed, I believe most of us can live with the status quo.

​It is obvious that if you opposed the current  policy on the books, you  will oppose SL-bis.
SL policy was adoption was tedious as the revision history  can tell. But it was a time where peoole understood the concept and were able to work out a concensual policy from a proposal.
Proponents of SL-BIS also will live with the status  quo as not too different from the original SL-BIS  proposa, but not with the the competing proposal you tend to favour.

I personally do not believe such a policy serves the community at this time, so making it even worse is counter-productive.

​We have agreed to disagree on this.​

> 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?

I think we don’t agree such a policy is required. 

> 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried  and we make progress on more productive issues.

I do not think we have consensus on this matter. Many of us believe this policy is unnecessary and even harmful. Others believe this policy is needed.

​This was expected  and lot of discussions have happened to merge and accomodate various views. Only those  personal oppositions from competing proposals  and denial of acceptance of the history  behind the last /8 we got from the global soft landing policy and which is subject of  the Soft landing policy  being updated  have not been addressed.

> However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we do a clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus, any clause agreed upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious but that way, we can identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or discard it.

The answer to 1 and 3 (really the same question in reverse) varies depending on who you ask. There is the rub.

​The tedious method was proposed by cochairs  and followed  by those who accepted it.

> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.

While I’d like to see us do so, unlike my opponents, I do recognize that they are entitled to sustain their support just as much as our sustained objections remain valid.

​The cochairs report on the proposal is avalaible. The Appeal Committee has failed  to point out these objections  not addressed which you are referring to. We have not made any  progress since.

> It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on IPV4.

The good news is that v4 freepool policies probably won’t matter much after Dakar or possibly one more meeting after that. There’s a reason the proponents are in a rush and the opponents are willing to run out the clock.

​Anyone on rush here?  This proposal has been following the normal track . Is this just another example of your biased judgments of things? 

Fortunately for the community, absent actual rough consensus, the process favors the status quo over ill-advised changes to policy over the objections of even a minority of the community.

​I am curious about your  definition of minority of the community and wonder if  we are  still talking about substantial  objections and rough consensus 


​I hope this helps.​
RPD mailing list
RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list