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

[jordi.palet at consulintel.es]

Hi Fundiswa,

All the policies that we have, somehow are already doing that. The RIRs evaluate the justification based on how you use the resources, so that clearly has an impact on how you design and manage your network. There is nothing different here. In the end, it is a community decision based on what is good for the overall community, not what is good for the ISPs or the RIRs, because the Internet resources are from the community. So yes, we are and we must keep doing that, influence how the Internet resources are managed, because are community resources!

If you pay attention to the proposal text, and the previous discussion, I think there is no doubt, that there is a clear rationale about how to measure the deployment. Please, let me know what specific points aren’t clear, so we can progress on that.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 7 jul 2026, a las 9:22, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I would like to share another perspective on the proposal.
> 
> From my understanding, the primary role of the Regional Internet Registries has always been to coordinate Internet number resources through transparent, community-developed policies.
> 
> Making IPv6 deployment a requirement for IPv4 Soft Landing appears to extend that role into evaluating how network operators design and manage their networks.
> 
> This raises an important governance question: how would it be determined whether an operator has deployed "enough" IPv6? Would this be based on traffic percentages, addressing plans, or some other measure? Different operators also have different deployment models, which could make such assessments difficult and open to interpretation.
> 
> In my view, Soft Landing policies should remain focused on the fair management of IPv4 resources rather than using IPv4 allocation to influence network architecture decisions.
> 
> I fully support continued IPv6 adoption through technical assistance, training, operational collaboration, and knowledge sharing. However, making IPv6 deployment a compliance requirement for IPv4 policy may unintentionally expand the role of the registry beyond neutral resource coordination.
> 
> As the Internet continues to evolve, I believe it is important to maintain a clear distinction between coordinating Internet number resources and influencing operational decisions.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
> 
> "Governance should follow operational reality." 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.