[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8

Tue Jul 7 07:58:56 UTC 2026

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

One question I have is whether this proposal changes how the Soft Landing
Policy is implemented.

The CPM already states that the purpose of Soft Landing is to support the
transition to IPv6 while managing the remaining IPv4 pool. My question is
whether requiring measurable IPv6 deployment as a condition for receiving
IPv4 moves the policy beyond encouraging transition and into evaluating how
operators implement their networks.

If so, should this type of oversight form part of resource policy, or would
it be more appropriate to encourage IPv6 adoption through technical
assistance, best practices and community collaboration?

I think clarifying this distinction may help the community evaluate the
proposal.

Kind regards,
Zim

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 09:48, <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. (no subject) (Zimkhitha Mguqulwa)
>    2. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)
>    3. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 (Nia Petronella)
>    4. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 (jordi.palet at consulintel.es)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 18:15:53 +0200
> From: Zimkhitha Mguqulwa <zimkhithamguqulwa32 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: [rpd] (no subject)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJ7uu8nEuc_j5kkKV8EhX_VhkgZTNk1uPTRUFOot35bcvudJJQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> I hope everyone is doing well.
>
> I am new to the mailing list and am sending this message to confirm that my
> subscription and posting permissions are working correctly. I look forward
> to following and contributing to future discussions.
>
> Kind regards,
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260706/2ee1356b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:22:14 +0200
> From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01
> Message-ID:
>         <CABV0QcTVvpdLv8b0Nw997dG=v=
> LcfHORdx6R94zjqpnOq-8eYA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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."
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/40ad19d8/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:24:00 +0200
> From: Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net, rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+mDOg3EfQ998gJq2KSHnsWeNRa3H72ZbX9eKQXvRRujU9Xebw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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."
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/d72ae894/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:47:44 +0200
> From: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01
> Message-ID: <7C848C2A-E257-4F56-BC64-7EC6961311EB at consulintel.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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> escribi?:
> >
> > 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8
> ***********************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/a7c7d08c/attachment-0001.html>