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

[Hendrik Visage]

On 7 Jul 2026, at 15:33, Simphiwe Ngubane via RPD wrote:

> Dear Jordi and colleagues,
>
> Thank you for continuing to share practical deployment experience.
>
> One observation I would like to make is that much of this discussion measures success through IPv6 adoption percentages.

yeah, that will be a sticky point from several perspectives.

> While those metrics are certainly useful operationally, I wonder whether they are the right indicators for policy.

I’d rather have a policy with indicators that is mostly right, than perfect.

> Should the success of Internet number resource governance instead be measured by questions such as:
>
> * Can operators retain confidence in registry neutrality?

What is the counter point you are seeing here? ie. what would make it biased instead of neutral?

> * Can resources remain portable when circumstances change?

Portable as in? If you refer to out of Africa for resources designed to Africa, then I’d say the answer should be an unequivocal NO

> * Do operators have meaningful exit options?

Exit from what? as in they quite the IP industry and now want to sell their “resources”? Nope, that should not and never was the intention of IP resources.

> * Are transfer processes predictable and transparent?

give a use case to underline you point other than being greedy and gathering cheap resources to be “sold” at a higher price?

> * Does policy minimise unnecessary administrative discretion?

At present there aren’t, other than proving you are a African based operator. What other administrative discretion are you afraid of?


> If these governance foundations are strong, operators remain free to adopt IPv6 wherever it provides value.

yeah, but the initial idea of the softlanding (from my interpretation) was to PREVENT resource gathering and reselling.. something that is counter to the ideas of the original Internet, but that got abused by the IP leasing companies, counter to the needs and provisioning of those of lesser means

> If those foundations are weak, adding IPv6 criteria may simply increase institutional dependence rather than improving Internet resilience.

I’d counter the issue that once you have a proper IPv6 rollout, then the IPv4 softlandings/etc. is mood points, as nobody would care about it.

> Jordi, would you support a broader discussion on governance reforms that strengthen portability, operator autonomy and exit rights alongside any discussion of IPv6?

Again may I ask you to show examples and case studies you have in mind that these IPv6 policies would impact?

> To me, those principles appear complementary to a healthy and competitive Internet.

Internet was originally never about “competitiveness”, but about sharing and caring and distribution of knowledge. Just go ask Archie! The internet is turning nasty and competitive (in my personal view, competitive is nasty, not good as it is counter to Ubuntu and working together) because of the idea and notion of IPv4 leasing companies that doesn’t add value, but just use it for their own pockets as speculation, where as we’d like to provide services in sharing knowledge… but that is the difference between those that see IPv4 addresses as “property”, instead of resources that had been placed in your guardianship (LIR) which is the more correct viewpoint for IP resources IMHO.

> Thank you for considering another perspective.
>
> Best regards,
> Simphiwe Ngubane
> "IPv4 is an important service enabler."

Nope, IPv6 is. IPv4 is currently a tool used to make war, not peace.
And yes, I’ll debate you on it as my eyes opened up to the gains from using IPv6 in my network vs IPv4 that is holding me back!!

>
>
>
> [cid:9a927a36-99f1-4767-8d8a-61a5ac7949f8]
>
> Simphiwe Ngubane
>
>
>
> MSc (Eng) specialising in Geomatics candidate:
>
>
>
> Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment
>
>
>
> Menzies Building, Level 5
>
>
>
> Upper Campus
>
>
>
> University of Cape Town | Rondebosch|7701
>
>
>
> Phone:  0810479025
>
>
>
> Email: ngbsim008 at myuct.ac.za
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer - University of Cape Town This email is subject to UCT policies and email disclaimer published on our website at https://www.uct.ac.za/main/email-disclaimer or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. If this email is not related to the business of UCT, it is sent by the sender in an individual capacity. Please report security incidents or abuse via https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident

> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd