[rpd] Promoting IPv6 adoption

Thu May 28 13:24:00 UTC 2026

Dear PDWG,

While I appreciate the goal of promoting IPv6 adoption, I have concerns
about making it a condition for IPv4 allocations under Soft Landing. IPv4
is still the operating foundation for many in this region. Adding a mandate
compounds cost and complexity without proven benefit, turning a resource
policy into a migration mandate. The cost and pressure would fall on
ordinary operators, while the main winners are likely registry governance
bodies and large equipment vendors. I ask the PDWG to examine these
consequences carefully.

Regards,
Theresa

On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 9:23 AM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01. (Darwin Da Costa)
>    2. Re: Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical names
>       AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01. (Jaco Kroon)
>    3. AFRINIC Policy Compliance Dashboard ID
>       AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT01. (Darwin Da Costa)
>    4. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01. (Gbemisola Esho)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 10:05:07 +0200
> From: Darwin Da Costa <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.
> Message-ID: <7DED1C3E-6BCB-4414-8F8D-9252540BAE18 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260528/acf245c0/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 10:07:01 +0200
> From: Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>
> To: James Bensley <james at inter.link>, "dacostadarwin at gmail.com"
>         <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical
>         names AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01.
> Message-ID: <bb3e9cba-d018-44b5-8364-7e7165f2bb70 at uls.co.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi James,
>
> On 2026/05/28 09:54, James Bensley wrote:
>
> > Hi Jaco,
> >
> > Thank you for the support and your feedback.
> >
> > I wrote the original proposal. Regarding this comment:
> >
> > "The only thing that I found weird is that the second element has to be
> a name, why would "ASnum:ASnum2:AS-name" not be acceptable?"
> >
> > If you have a use case for that, then that could be added to the
> proposal. Do you have a use case/requirement for this? I think this usage
> is very rare, but if you have this use case, please speak up :)
>
> It's a hierarchy right, so what if I want to refer my customers by their
> AS numbers?
>
> Eg, ASyyyy:ASxxxx:AS-set
>
> It's an arbitrary and in my opinion unneeded restriction which can be
> removed.? The only restriction is that the first component has to be
> ASnum where you have control over AS num.? The rest can be left to the
> discretion of the ASnum admin surely?
>
> So just drop bullet three entirely.
>
> >
> >
> > Regarding this comment:
> >
> > "The purpose/function of "3. Other set types such as route sets are
> excluded." is unclear - everything else speaks specifically to AS-SET so
> why is this mention required?"
> >
> > Because route-sets can also support hierarchical names and in the past
> people have had the thought "well if we're making this change for AS-SETs
> let's also making it for Route-Sets whilst we're here" - but route-sets are
> extremely rarely used today and this just adds scope which I think isn't
> needed. So it was just about trying to stop that scope creep.
>
> I hear you.
>
> 7.8 as as whole specifically states "AS-SET" - not "Set Types", and
> point 1 also makes it clears this refers specifically to AS-SET, which
> means point 3 can be dropped without changing the intent/meaning of 7.8
> as a whole.
>
> Point 4 also really adds no value, that's an operational issue, not a
> policy issue.? Definitely a valid point and something to be aware but
> still operational, not policy.
>
> Exceptions to the policy may need to be permitted on a case by case
> basis *if and only if* a non-hierarchical AS-SET has been accidentally
> deleted to allow recreation.? IMHO these should require motivation to
> have them restored from where they can then be edited again as per point 6.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jaco
>
> >
> > With kind regards,
> > James Bensley (he/him)
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>
> > Sent: 21 May 2026 14:06
> > To: dacostadarwin at gmail.com <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>; rpd at afrinic.net <
> rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical
> names AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Definitely in support.
> >
> > The only thing that I found weird is that the second element has to be a
> > name, why would "ASnum:ASnum2:AS-name" not be acceptable?
> >
> > The purpose/function of "3. Other set types such as route sets are
> > excluded." is unclear - everything else speaks specifically to AS-SET so
> > why is this mention required?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Jaco
> >
> > On 2026/05/20 19:37, dacostadarwin at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Dear PDWG,
> >>
> >> We have received a new draft policy proposal - Require newly created
> AS-SETs to have hierarchical names, ID AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01 from
> author James Bensley.
> >>
> >> The proposal contents are published at:
> >> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-asn-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
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > [CompanySignature]
> > Inter..link GmbH | Boxhagener Stra?e 80, 10245 Berlin, Germany |
> Managing Directors: Marc Korthaus, Theo Voss | Commercial Register:
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 138876 | VAT ID: DE281288887 | Email:
> hello at inter.link<mailto:hello at inter.link> | Web: inter.link<
> https://inter.link>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 10:07:31 +0200
> From: Darwin Da Costa <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Policy Compliance Dashboard ID
>         AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT01.
> Message-ID: <FD310813-B1DF-4F1A-85C6-4B563F1C5BBA at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> We have received a new draft policy proposal - AFRINIC Policy Compliance
> Dashboard ID AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT01 from author Jordi Palet Martinez.
> The proposal contents are published at:
>
> https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-gen-002-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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 09:22:45 +0100
> From: Gbemisola Esho <gbemiadepojuesho at gmail.com>
> To: Darwin Da Costa <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.
> Message-ID:
>         <CAG0SVrMyy-N4D25s-G05kTyuRfvL=
> fisTUzHiU-QXgHL+OxPAA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Acknowledged with thanks
>
>
> Regards,
> Gbemisola Esho
>
> On Thu, 28 May 2026, 09:08 Darwin Da Costa, <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260528/b0ca3f5a/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 220, Issue 44
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260528/23122f9c/attachment-0001.html>