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

[jordi.palet at consulintel.es]

Hi Nia,

The CPM is clear about the reason for the Soft Landing policy:

"In order to ensure a smooth transition to IPv6, AFRINIC's pool should be managed to provide members with address space after the IPv4 pool is depleted. This will help in maintaining IPv4 networks while deploying IPv6 networks - a practice that characterizes the transition period."

If we don’t “attach" the soft landing IPv4 remaining resources to the IPv6 deployment, then there is no need for a soft landing policy. It will be much better to just follow pre-soft-landing policies and let the natural IPv4 exhaustion to progress.

To correctly answer yous questions, I will like to understand what do you mean with “portability”.

Note that all the governments, sooner or later, will need to enforce the IPv6 deployment. There is no question about that. Regulation is not good if we can, as a technical community, self-regulate in advance with our own pace, specially considering that law makers, courts, etc., etc., have not the knowledge neither expertise, and in fact they have a very hard time trying to understand how Internet works, and consequently they can make severe mistakes with such regulations. There are many examples of that in many countries, such as when the Spanish, Italian and other courts decided that, to fight against football piracy is right to enforce filtering based on IPs, VPNs, etc., and this create millions of losses to absolutely legal and honest web sites, e-commerce, NGOs, etc.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 7 jul 2026, a las 9:24, Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Dear Jordi and colleagues,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed contribution. Your examples clearly demonstrate that, with the right planning, expertise and organisational commitment, IPv6 deployment can progress rapidly. Those operational experiences are undoubtedly valuable and should continue to be shared across the community.
> 
> However, I find myself asking a broader policy question.
> 
> What is the primary objective of an IPv4 Soft Landing policy?
> 
> Is it to manage the fair and efficient allocation of remaining IPv4 resources, or is it to encourage the deployment of IPv6?
> 
> While both are important, I believe they are distinct policy objectives and may require different policy instruments.
> 
> If IPv6 deployment becomes a prerequisite for IPv4 eligibility, could that unintentionally shift the role of Soft Landing from resource management to influencing network strategy?
> 
> One of the enduring strengths of the Internet has been that operators retain the flexibility to choose technologies based on their own operational realities, customer needs and commercial priorities. That flexibility has enabled innovation across networks with very different business models and levels of maturity.
> 
> From that perspective, I wonder whether this discussion presents an opportunity to consider broader governance reforms instead of additional deployment criteria.
> 
> For example:
> 
> - Should policies place greater emphasis on portability so that operators retain confidence in the continuity of their Internet number resources?
> - Should exit rights be recognised as an important governance safeguard, allowing operators meaningful alternatives if institutional confidence is weakened?
> - Should registry policy focus on reducing unnecessary administrative discretion while strengthening predictability and legal certainty?
> - As Internet number resources continue to grow in economic importance, should governance evolve to reinforce operator autonomy rather than introduce additional conditions tied to technology choices?
> 
> Jordi, I would genuinely value your opinion on this.
> 
> Do you see portability and exit rights as governance principles that deserve greater attention within the RIR policy framework, particularly as the Internet ecosystem becomes more decentralised and commercially diverse?
> 
> It seems to me that governance reforms which strengthen neutrality, continuity and operator choice would benefit both IPv4 and IPv6 communities alike, regardless of where each operator is on its deployment journey.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nonhlanhla 
> 
> "Strong governance is built on portability, neutrality and choice." 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260707/7805f63f/attachment-0001.html>