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

[rpd] Promoting IPv6 adoption

jordi.palet at consulintel.es jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu May 28 16:14:25 UTC 2026 

Hi Ben,

Today there are sufficient OEM vendors for all kind of network devices that there is no need to buy “pre owned” equipment. In Alibaba, you can find almost anything. I was in Shenzhen in March for the IETF meeting and visited a coupe of vendors, really impressive. Actually brought with me some 100G L3 switches, among other things, and just as a quick comparison, one of them will have costed me 4-5.000 euros in Spain, and I paid only 432 USD. Even more features than using a well known branded device.

For ONU, CPE, etc., I’m not necessarily suggesting replacing all those already in customers in a single shot, clearly it could be phases across a number of months or years, and be part of marketing actions, such as “we will provide a better wifi, you need to pay part of the cost”.

As an example, you can find in Alibaba, without the need for buying thousands of units (of course cheaper if you do so, but basically because the shipping and customs clearance expenses go down per unit), ONU/CPE with Wifi, 4 Gig ports, for less than 12-15USD (you’ve thousands of options to choose). You can customize OpenWrt based on your own needs if a default OpenWrt doesn’t work for you.

IPv6 (actually 464XLAT) deployment in 4/5G networks is the most easy one, so they don’t really have any excuse. May be they don’t have the expertise, but experienced consultants in the field, like ourselves (sorry not intended publicity, just showing reality), will be much cheaper an reliable that trusting any vendor or paying for their extra services.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet


> El 28 may 2026, a las 17:37, Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net> escribió:
> 
> Jordi,
> Ok. I think we are mostly aligned. 
> Other challenges we have of older “pre owned” equipment in the provider WAN and very much in the enterprise LAN, as well as consumer devices and CPEs are also part of the challenge. That may be a blog for another day….
> 
> My list of shame though really is the lazy MNOs and their vendors that have deployed state of the art 5G core and not rolled out V6. This unfortunately means that most African Internet users don’t get served an IPv6. 
> 
> <image1.jpeg>
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 28 May 2026, at 18:28, jordi.palet--- via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> I don’t think I’ve suggested (it wasn’t my intent) that we need to exhaust IPv4 as fast as possible, on the other way around.
>> 
>> Note that Afrinic recovered 3.000.000 of address, and I suggested in another proposal, to keep them under the same Soft Landing “pool", not reverting back to allocation policies previous to Soft Landing. We entered in the last Soft Landing phase, let’s remain there to have a more controlled distribution of IPv4 resources, but together with IPv6. This is to ensure that both, newcomers, and people willing to do the transition to IPv6, still keep having IPv4 pools to be able to do that and avoid them a heavy work of renumbering existing customers to recover IPv4 addresses from other parts of the network.
>> 
>> After reading your blog, I think we agree that deploying new networks with IPv6 is the way:
>> 
>> “The silver lining is that Africa's relative latecomer status to internet infrastructure could become an advantage: rather than managing the complex transition from IPv4 to IPv6, many African nations can build IPv6-native networks from the ground up. This leapfrogging potential, combined with mobile-first innovation and growing regional interconnection, suggests that today's IPv4 poverty need not determine tomorrow's digital destiny."
>> 
>> This is true also for extending existing networks (so those requesting new IPv4 allocations or assignments). Unless you advocate for “if you need to extend your network, better keep doing it with IPv4”?
>> 
>> I just disagree that you mention a complex transition from IPv4 to IPv6. This is not longer true. Right now in both, mobile and wired networks, deploying 464XLAT is much much much much cheaper than IPv4 or even dual-stack (and in this case easier as well). Even in the case of enterprise networks, using IPv6-Mostly is also cheaper and easier. This is not an opinion, is technical and economical facts, based on deployment experience in hundreds of networks.
>> 
>> I’m not saying turning your existing network to IPv6 overnight. A progressive deployment, which match each specific case needs to be planned.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> @jordipalet
>> 
>> 
>>> El 28 may 2026, a las 16:55, Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Jordi,
>>> I really have to disagree with this narrative that IPv4 needs to be exhausted as fast as possible because some regard it as legacy. 
>>> 
>>> I draw attention to my earlier blog on this matter where I advocate that the inequality gap is there. https://www.digitaleconomy.ke/post/ipv4-address-allocation-in-africa-are-you-above-or-below-the-ip-address-poverty-line
>>> 
>>> For now those African countries that are catching up are going to need that base load allocations that they get under soft landing. 
>>> 
>>> Kind regards 
>>> 
>>> Ben 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 28 May 2026, at 16:53, jordi.palet--- via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Theresa,
>>>> 
>>>> I think it needs to be understood that IPv4 is legacy and its main usage must be supporting transition.
>>>> 
>>>> This has been said already many times, but I think we need to repeat it.
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn’t make any sense to extend any existing network, or to deploy a new one, with IPv4-only.
>>>> 
>>>> We are not saying it must be done with IPv6-only. In fact, the way is IPv6-Only with IPv4-as-a-Service, which basically means this is not a migration (we aren’t talking about removing IPv4 completely), it is transition and coexistence (there is no such concept as migration defined by IETF).
>>>> 
>>>> The Soft Landing policy was designed having this in mind, it is clear reading 5.4 in the CPM, however we didn’t took measures at that time to make it happen. Now is the time.
>>>> 
>>>> At that time the IPv6 deployment levels were very low globally, but at this time, Africa is overall, the bigger lagging region and no great signs that this is changing quickly.
>>>> 
>>>> There is not today, any technical or even economical rationale to support IPv4 only. In fact across many deployments where I’ve participated in more than 150 countries, the result is that deploying IPv6 is much cheaper than IPv4 (IPv6 supporting equipment is not more expensive than IPv4, is the same price, and some cost are much lower, such as no need for CGN boxes). The problem is basically a lack of decision by executives, not technical people.
>>>> 
>>>> We need to accommodate to the pace of each one, but a credible pace, not a pace like “I get more IPv4, promise IPv6, but I’m lazy and don’t have now the time to do it". I think is fine that we accommodate the text in the new version so each one can say “I realistically will grow 15% my network in the next year (that’s why I’m asking for IPv4 addresses), and I will do that with IPv6, so I commit to % IPv6 traffic for the 1st year, % next one and so on”. I’m happy to try as much as possible, with all your contributions, to accommodate the text in the next version, in such way that is not like you say having the cost and pressure unbalanced.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jordi
>>>> 
>>>> @jordipalet
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> El 28 may 2026, a las 15:24, Theresa Dukumor <theresadukumor at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>>>>>>         rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>>>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>>
>>>>>> To: James Bensley <james at inter.link>, "dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>"
>>>>>>         <dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>>, "rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>" <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>>
>>>>>> > Sent: 21 May 2026 14:06
>>>>>> > To: dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com> <dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>>; rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > RPD mailing list
>>>>>> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:hello at inter.link>> | Web: inter.link<https://inter.link <https://inter.link/>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Message: 3
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 10:07:31 +0200
>>>>>> From: Darwin Da Costa <dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gbemiadepojuesho at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> To: Darwin Da Costa <dacostadarwin at gmail.com <mailto:dacostadarwin at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:fisTUzHiU-QXgHL%2BOxPAA 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> End of RPD Digest, Vol 220, Issue 44
>>>>>> ************************************
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> 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



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260528/6620c71f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list