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

Wed Jul 8 08:29:09 UTC 2026

So IPv6 is slower???

 From my home in Pretoria, where I have a 100Mbps FTTH connection via 
Telkom/Axxess - I can easily test ping times to a server I have at 
Teraco in Johannesburg. Running ping side-by-side, I see:-

            Min     Avg   Max   Mdev
IPv6:  4.565/5.028/6.021/0.318 ms
IPv4:  5.013/5.902/6.452/0.395 ms

Speedtest systems give me 105Mbps down and 95Mbps upload speeds.... (to 
Durban???) - but do I really care? I'm more interested in "how quick 
does that Website load" or "how fast are responses to typing" - not "do 
I save a second in downloading a 1.2GB movie"

Anyway - my Interactive interaction to my servers at Teraco is faster on 
IPv6 than on IPv4 - not that I really notice a 1ms difference!

Oh - I strongly suggest if you are in the Internet industry then you 
should generally use your ccTLD based email address - not Gmail/Yahoo - etc.

On 2026/07/08 09:01, Jaco Kroon via RPD wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm looping back to this original email, not because I want to answer 
> here directly, but rather because I think it's appropriate to consider 
> the "bigger picture" of responses.
>
> First and foremost, I've seen quite strong opinions from newly 
> registered @gmail.com addresses.  I'd like to understand the 
> affiliation of these participants.
>
> In my opinion there are a number of conflicting and not quite obvious 
> agendas in this, for this, and against this, policy proposal - all of 
> them with various commercial impacts for various entities.  Almost 
> none of them to the benefit of the "end consumer".
>
> I personally believe the best thing is to retain the current status 
> quo *as it stands*, as this leaves operational decisions to the 
> various network operators rather than enforcing operational issues by 
> way of policy.
>
> That said, I *personally* do not believe IPv4 should have a future of 
> any kind.  Here I'm in agreement with Jordi that networks should be 
> deploying as IPv6-first.
>
> The *reality* however is that the world is predominantly IPv4 - 
> "everyone" is connected using IPv4, and I don't (at least not in 
> Africa) see that this is going to change any time soon.  We've been 
> debating the reasons for this in the office the last week or two, and 
> I'm not going to bore you with the details, but our opinion is that 
> this is not because networks and techies don't want to switch but 
> because customers (yes, you read that right) demands that we don't.  
> When you deploy DNS for a customer - just dare try and ask for AAAA 
> details when only provided with A details and see the response you 
> get.  Usually from people that should *know better*.
>
> When people run speedtest (which I understand measures only L7 
> throughput) and they get a lower value on IPv6 than on IPv4 ... what's 
> the next thing that happens?  User logs into router, find the "disable 
> IPv6" button (or equivalent) *click*.
>
> Okay, so follow the (apparent) European standard of users may not have 
> access to their routers where they're forced to have IPv6 on and can 
> do nothing about it ... had a discussion the other day with someone in 
> Europe about this, "I get better throughput by putting my own router 
> behind that of my ISP and running IPv4 only on my own network" - where 
> there's v6 only ... well, I've yet to hear/see about that 
> end-network.  Some core networks sure I've heard of that.
>
> As much as I hate to say this:  IPv4 is going to be with us for a 
> while.  And we should encourage deployment of IPv6, but I don't think 
> we can enforce that by way of policy as this is interfering with 
> network operational decisions/designs.  I also strongly disagree with 
> apparent stances I've observed hinting that we should make the soft 
> landing more lax as that just drives up costs for everyone much sooner 
> and faster, and in a world where everyone I communicate with are 
> already complaining about the cost of stuff I don't think that's fair 
> either.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jaco
>
> On 2026/05/28 10:05, Darwin Da Costa wrote:
>>
>> Dear PDWG,
>>
>>
>> We have received a new draft policy proposal - IPv6 as a criteria in 
>> IPv4 Soft Landing ID AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01 from author Jordi 
>> Palet Martinez. The proposal contents are published at:
>>
>>
>> https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01
>>
>>
>>
>> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal 
>> contents and  provide feedback as follows:
>>
>>
>> a)Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>
>>
>> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons?
>>
>>
>> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>
>>
>> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
>>
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-- 

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260708/8fcf971e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260708/8fcf971e/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260708/8fcf971e/attachment-0001.png>