Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 13
Zenalo Mguqulwa
mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 07:42:35 UTC 2026
Good day all,
I agree with Mike. The discussion is no longer about IPv6 itself but about
the scope of the RIR's mandate. Resource allocation and protocol choice
should remain separate. The registry should coordinate Internet number
resources, while operators retain responsibility for network architecture
and deployment decisions.
Regards
On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 15:29, <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. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
> AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)
> 2. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8 (Mike Burns)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 14:18:22 +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:
> <
> CABV0QcS0qzkeyTBQDSY2ZCyHoRoWA-OjekuZ+Bx0Jr8R_RAXGg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Jordi,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on your position.
>
> I respectfully beg to differ, not on the value of openness, but on the
> assumption that openness alone is sufficient to guarantee legitimacy.
>
> You describe the community as "global humanity" and note that anyone can
> participate. In theory, I completely agree that the process is open. My
> concern is whether openness necessarily translates into representation.
>
> Political theory has long distinguished between formal participation and
> effective participation. A process may be open to everyone, yet still be
> shaped primarily by those with the time, institutional knowledge, and
> procedural familiarity to engage continuously. In practice, these are
> rarely the network operators spending their days deploying infrastructure,
> expanding connectivity, and managing commercial risk.
>
> This is not a criticism of the PDP itself. Rather, it is a recognition that
> governance systems naturally develop an asymmetry between those who operate
> institutions and those who operate networks.
>
> That distinction matters.
>
> The argument that "if you are unhappy, you should simply participate"
> assumes that legitimacy is created by the availability of participation. I
> would argue that legitimacy is strengthened when governance remains
> proportionate to its mandate and when those who bear the greatest
> operational and economic consequences are not required to become full-time
> governance participants simply to protect their interests.
>
> This brings me to portability.
>
> When I refer to portability, I am not referring to the portability of IP
> addresses themselves, but to the portability of governance relationships.
>
> A resilient governance system should never assume permanent institutional
> dependence. Just as the Internet itself was designed to eliminate single
> points of failure, governance should also avoid creating situations where
> operators are effectively locked into one institutional relationship with
> no meaningful alternatives.
>
> Portability therefore means that operators should be able to maintain
> continuity of their number resources while retaining meaningful freedom of
> institutional choice. The existence of credible alternatives creates
> healthy accountability. Institutions perform best when they continue to
> earn the confidence of those they serve, rather than assuming that
> confidence will always exist.
>
> Similarly, exit rights are not about abandoning coordination; they are
> about ensuring that coordination remains voluntary rather than becoming
> structurally unavoidable. In most governance systems, the ability to leave
> is an important discipline on the exercise of authority. Where meaningful
> exit becomes impossible, institutions inevitably accumulate greater
> discretionary power over time because there are fewer practical constraints
> on that power.
>
> This is why I remain cautious about proposals that make IPv6 deployment a
> criterion for IPv4 Soft Landing.
>
> Viewed in isolation, it may appear to be a technical policy adjustment.
> Viewed within the broader trajectory of Internet governance, however, it
> represents another step in expanding institutional influence beyond
> resource coordination and into operational decision-making.
>
> Perhaps the more fundamental question is not whether IPv6 deployment is
> beneficial?it clearly is in many contexts?but whether policy should
> encourage technological outcomes through administrative conditions, or
> whether its primary role should remain the neutral coordination of Internet
> number resources.
>
> The strength of the Internet has always been that it is decentralised,
> interoperable, and resilient. I believe our governance principles should
> aspire to those same characteristics.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
>
> "Decentralisation is sustained not only by open participation, but by
> meaningful choice."
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/d72bdb66/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:27:20 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
> To: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 8
> Message-ID: <00dc01dd0e14$566a6150$033f23f0$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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> > escribi?:
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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 <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
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/7805f63f/attachment.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.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 13
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260708/bbe55551/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list