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

[jordi.palet at consulintel.es]

Hi Benson,

Trying to make it short.

In most of the aspects that you mention here, manufacturing of routers, switches, and similar networking equipment, is not different in Africa than Europe or Latin America and Caribbean, and despite that, there is more IPv6 deployment and traffic in those regions.

As I’ve mention today in the AFNOG session, having deployed IPv6 in many networks, in many countries, including small and big deployments, the cost of artificially keeping IPv4 with CGN is much higher than deploying IPv6.

This is like any new technology. Either you do it already with your own pace, but a good one (months, not years), or will become in the end more difficult and expensive.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 30 may 2026, a las 5:51, Benson Muite <benson_muite at emailplus.org> escribió:
> 
> "jordi.palet--- via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> writes:
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> Encouraging more IPv6 adoption is helpful.  MNOs sharing IPv4 addresses
> leads to problematic internet access, at least some IPs I have received
> temporarily have been listed at:
> https://www.dronebl.org/
> 
> That being said, sharing an IPv4 address behind a NAT gives some level
> of privacy which may require more configuration effort if IPv6 is used.
> 
>> Hi Dorothy,
>> 
>> I need to make this clear again. There is no such thing as migration, we don’t turn-off IPv4 completely. Anyone can keep using it. What we are doing is to ensure with IPv6-only with IPv4-as-a-Service, that both protocols coexist, so we do an ordered transition, at the pace of everyone.
>> 
>> As faster you move to IPv6, as cheaper is your CapEx and OpEx, it is up to each operator.
>> 
> 
> There is an initial setup and training cost.  For hardware, while one
> can buy routers from other places outside Africa, some of the countries
> mentioned as leading in the post:
> https://www.digitaleconomy.ke/post/ipv4-address-allocation-in-africa-are-you-above-or-below-the-ip-address-poverty-line
> also have growing electronics industries, unfortunately none are
> fabricating chips, but PCB assembly is possible.  While many people will
> likely start with refurbrished equipment, locally manufactured equipment
> maybe easier to repair and update giving a lower total cost of
> ownership.
> 
> AfriNIC courses on IPv6 are good, but there does not seem to be a strong
> link to the African electronics sector and to the education sector.  Are
> there any statistics on the numbers of people that have taken AfriNICs
> IPv6 courses? Of particular interest would be Nigeria which has
> significant internet users and DRC which produces raw material used in
> chips, but does little value addition to the raw materials.
> 
> My understanding is that a number of tertiary educational institutions have
> obtained blocks of IPs from AfriNIC. How actively promoted is IPv6 at
> these institutions?  Do any of those people responsible for those
> allocations monitor this list or does one need to reach out to them
> individually?
> 
> 
>> The RIR job is not setting up policies, is up to the community, the global Internet community.
>> 
>> What we are saying is that the Soft Landing policy already was designed to ensure that newcomers and existing players needing more resources, do it together with IPv6 deployment, but we didn’t set rules to verify that and the level of encouragement was basically cero. Now we, as a community (not the RIR), can decide if we want to give a stronger push and what level of push we want to have.
>> 
>> Fighting against IPv6 deployment is non-sense, it is a very high cost not only for all the players in Africa, but also in the rest of Internet.
> 
> Encouraging IPv6 adoption is good, but success will depend on more than
> just forcing an allocation when applying for a block of IPv4 addresses.
> If most people in Africa will be consumers on a mobile network behind a
> NAT, then IPv6 uptake will be slow.  If more people are looking to put
> up their own online services, they maybe more interest in IPv6 as the
> cost of leasing the address will be lower.
> 
> Of course, for Africa, if Google and Meta were to turn off IPv4, it
> would be painful, but transition to IPv6 would happen real quick!
> 
> The other main reason people use the internet is to access government
> services.  This sector tends to be price sensitive and difficult to move
> in new directions.  Simply forcing it to obtain IPv6 addresses will not
> likely encourage IPv6 adoption unless there are tangible benefits to end
> users.
> 
>> 
>> We need to see it in the other way around. Deploying IPv6, or extending existing networks with IPv6 is cheaper than buying more and more CGN boxes.
>> 
>> So clearly I must disagree that this will create a burden, on the other way around.
>> 
>> Saying it in a different way: It will be non-sense that an existing operator extend its network to accommodate more customers (that’s the reason they need more IPv4 addresses in the end), and they do it without implementing IPv6, the cost will be bigger with only-IPv4. Same non-sense that a new operator or end-site decides to start just with IPv4, the cost will be bigger.
>> 
>> We need to find the way to word it so there is a proper balance. We are not saying necessarily, because you have “n” new customers and need IPv4 addresses for them, you need to deploy IPv6 in all your network (even less remove IPv4 completely). Let’s find the way to ensure that we request a % of traffic according to the grow that creates you the need for more IPv4 addresses and then ramp-up the following years.
> 
> The policy proposal has good intentions, but the feedback here indicates
> you are mostly preaching to the choir.  It needs integration with the
> wider eco system.
> 
> Regards,
> Benson


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