[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8

Tue Jul 7 13:27:20 UTC 2026

Hi Jordi,

“As I said before, all the policies already have influence in how the
networks are operated”

Tell me how the RIPE transfer policy influences how the networks are
operated.

There is no justification, so how does it work?

Historically, RIRs have avoided influencing network decisions. In ARIN, for
example, you can justify the use of a public routed address on every single
computer in an organization, no NAT expected or required. Even though nobody
would do this today, the ARIN community did not think it advisable to favor
one sort of network implementation over another, in recognition of the
limits of the RIR role.

Your proposal elevates one network configuration over another with clarity,
and changes the RIR role forever with the same clarity.

Now the RIRs are not just stewards of numbers and ensurers of uniqueness,
not just protocol cheerleaders, but instead protocol police.

If “global humanity” wants IPv6, it has to happen organically. Top down
forcing by a tiny elite is not the answer.

I think the question about portability goes to the ability to move
registration to a different RIR without undue limitation. I know there are
members of this community who witnessed the last several years and wonder
about their escape hatch.

Regards,
Mike

From: jordi.palet--- via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2026 4:26 AM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8

Hi Zenalo,

I think it is clear that both is needed: technical assistance which is
already being provided since many years (up to a certain point, because a
RIR is not a business for training and consultancy and doing that my
interfere even with competition laws, and of course, the RIR staff aren’t
doing actual production deployments in such way they have all the required
expertise) and community policies that protect and ensure a fair usage of
the community resources.

As I said before, all the policies already have influence in how the
networks are operated, is difficult to draw a border line, but the community
policies are to protect the community resources, not the ISP business.
Otherwise, the policies will be made by the ISPs, instead of the community
and the is not how we decided to do this in a global RIR ecosystem-scale.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

El 7 jul 2026, a las 9:58, Zenalo Mguqulwa <mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com
<mailto:mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com> > escribió:

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
<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. (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
<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 18:15:53 +0200
From: Zimkhitha Mguqulwa <zimkhithamguqulwa32 at gmail.com
<mailto:zimkhithamguqulwa32 at gmail.com> >
To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> 
Subject: [rpd] (no subject)
Message-ID:
        <CAJ7uu8nEuc_j5kkKV8EhX_VhkgZTNk1uPTRUFOot35bcvudJJQ at mail.gmail.com
<mailto: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/attac
hment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:22:14 +0200
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com
<mailto:fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com> >
To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> 
Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto: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
<mailto: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/attac
hment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:24:00 +0200
From: Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com
<mailto:nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com> >
To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> , rpd-owner at afrinic.net
<mailto: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
<mailto:CA%2BmDOg3EfQ998gJq2KSHnsWeNRa3H72ZbX9eKQXvRRujU9Xebw 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/attac
hment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:47:44 +0200
From: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> "
<jordi.palet at consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> >
To: 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: <7C848C2A-E257-4F56-BC64-7EC6961311EB at consulintel.es
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/attac
hment.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 222, Issue 8
***********************************

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20260707/93960920/attachment-0001.html>