[rpd] Pushing IPv6 ? Re: Questions about IP Allocation rate

[Noah]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025, 11:31 am Hendrik Visage, <hvisage at hevis.co.za> wrote:

> Question:
>
>  Shouldn’t we rather consider pushing IPv6 deployment assistance across
> Africa?
>

ie. let the rest of the IPv4 go ASAP without much resistance.
>

Let it go where?


> ARIN (North America) & RIPE (Europe) serviced areas are way ahead of IPv6
> roll outs, ‘cause they don’t have any left,
>

Yes true but the operate dual-stack networks.

Have the global north networks returned the IPv4 address space back to ARIN
and RIPE since its legacy to them and most of them are now IPv6 ready?

and looking at AfriNIC services countries, we are still have an abundance
> of IPv4,
>

We have nothing and we never had anything. But with even the little IPv4
that we have...

so IPv6 percentage roll outs are very low,
>

Is needed to aid with IPv6 transition...

>
and rathe we should be pushing to mirror the IPv6 percentage rollout and
> usage rather than fighting over the few remaining IPv4s if we want to grow
> digital rollouts.
>

Show me who in ARIN or RIPE returned their IPv4 address allocations back to
the inventory after going full IPv6.


> Perhaps even moving to a state of: “You can have IPv6, once you’ve proven
> a complete IPv6 rollout can you get anymore IPv4"
>

Good idea for those already with IPv4 space. Let us work out a policy
around the above statement which I find reasonable.


> ---
> Hendrik Visage
> Instant messaging: https://t.me/hvisage
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2025, at 16:43, Andrew Alston <aa at alstonnetworks.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if there were updated statistics for the amount of space
> allocated in the last 3 years.  In addition to this information regarding
> exactly how much free space is still available in the IPv4 unallocated pool
> (excluding reservations)
>
> I ask this because depending on the allocation rate - we may wish to
> consider revising the soft-landing policy that currently reserves a /12
> worth of ipv4 space for "future uses, as yet unforeseen".
>
> I point out that the soft landing policy was ratified in 2011, and if we
> still, after 14 years, have not been able to articulate a clear reason for
> such a large reservation, I think it's time we look at most, if not all, of
> that /12 back into the main unallocated pool that can be allocated for
> African resource holders that actually need it.
>
> Amongst other reasons, sitting with unallocated, unannounced, reserved
> space like this leaves the space vulnerable to hijacking and malicious use
> or even potential theft.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ---
>
> Hendrik Visage
>
> hvisage at hevis.co.za
>
>
> HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd
>
> https://www.envisage.co.za
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20251014/798752f7/attachment.html>