[rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi Jordi,

I support the principle very much.  Practicality may be a different 
story, yes, must implement v6, however:

How do you determine/measure that?  I think your "In addition" section 
addresses this to a degree.

Merely advertising IPv6 space?  Sure, that's easy, but it doesn't mean I 
have to actually make that available to customers.

Re proposed text, the word "However, " doesn't add value, merely "Any 
IPv4 request must be done with a simultaneous IPv6 request if the 
requesting party does not already have IPv6 space."

This does also be the question, it seems 6.5.1.1.3 states that you must 
give /48s to end sites - we do distinguish between business and home 
users, for business we happily do /48 if so required (at least we 
reserve a /48 per site minimum), but for home users we generally do 
dynamically allocated /56 (but will again do /48 on request) - would 
this imply failure to comply with your proposed policy?  If so, should 
the proposed policy be adjusted, or 6.5.1.1.3?

For PI space (6.8.2.2.d) - what does deployed mean?

Kind regards,
Jaco Kroon

On 2026/05/28 10:28, jordi.palet--- via RPD wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Somehow this is a response to Sami input on a previous proposal.
>
> This way we can split the problem space in 2 proposals, which may reach consensus without depending one on the other.
>
> So we have a very basic question: If we believe that the members that receive IPv4 out of the Soft Landing policy, must implement IPv6, or not?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>> El 28 may 2026, a las 10:05, Darwin Da Costa<dacostadarwin at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> Dear PDWG,
>>
>> We have received a new draft policy proposal - IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing ID AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 from author Jordi Palet Martinez. The proposal contents are published at:
>>
>> https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01 
>>
>>
>> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents and  provide feedback as follows:
>>
>> a)Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>
>> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons?
>>
>> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>
>> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260528/77a3fa71/attachment.html>