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

Wed Jul 8 18:27:58 UTC 2026

On 8 Jul 2026, at 10:29, Mark Elkins via RPD wrote:

> So IPv6 is slower???

Yes… well… the *perception* several times, and the … wel… guilty 
party is the one that tries to make things beterer for IPv6… HE.net ;(

I had the case where they are grabbing traffic for some reason, and then 
it goes long paths around the world… instead of the shortest IPv4 
route, so yes, there is one example.
I’ve heard from another provider that had a user that had similar IPV6 
slowness complaints whenever they have IPv6 enabled on the router…

I had the case 2-3 weeks ago, where the IPv6 to a major bank’s public 
facing website (the only IPv6 portion) didn’t want to load, switched 
off IPv4 and it works like a charm…. IPv6 MSS/MTU on a PPPoE link and 
once I forced a lower TCP MSS on the link things worked again, so I see 
those clients (like Jaco’s) would’ve also seen similar and dropped 
IPv6 in favor of IPv4 only on their network firewall ‘cause of issues 
like  the above.

> 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.

It this group not also suppose to be “verified” users in/from the 
AfriNIC WhoIS DB?

>
>
> 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

> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260708/6d53a979/attachment-0001.html>