[rpd] IPv6 as a Criterion in IPv4 Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT02)

[Fundiswa Nadia Maseko]

Dear colleagues,

After following the discussions on the updated proposal and reading the
different perspectives shared by the community, I would like to offer my
thoughts.

Firstly, I fully support the continued growth of IPv6. It is an important
part of the Internet's future, and encouraging its adoption is in
everyone's interest. My concern, however, is whether the IPv4 Soft Landing
policy is the appropriate place to achieve that objective.

One issue that stands out to me is the distinction between IPv6 readiness
and IPv6 deployment. An operator may be preparing for IPv6, investing in
staff training, upgrading infrastructure, or planning deployment in phases.
That does not necessarily mean they are ready to meet deployment targets
immediately. Different operators face different technical, financial, and
operational realities.

For this reason, I am concerned that making IPv6 deployment a condition for
receiving IPv4 resources may unintentionally create barriers instead of
encouraging progress.
I also believe policy should remain proportionate to its original purpose.
The IPv4 Soft Landing policy exists to manage the remaining IPv4 address
space fairly and transparently. If it begins determining how operators
should design or prioritise their networks, the role of the registry may
gradually expand from neutral coordination into influencing operational
decisions.

Another point worth considering is implementation. Any policy that
introduces deployment requirements should be clear, objective, and easy to
assess. If different operators can interpret the requirements differently,
or if compliance depends on subjective judgement, uncertainty may increase
for members requesting IPv4 resources.

The discussion has also highlighted that Africa's Internet ecosystem has
unique operational realities. Some networks are well positioned to deploy
IPv6 quickly, while others continue to face infrastructure, funding, or
market challenges. A regional policy should be flexible enough to recognise
those differences rather than assuming every operator is starting from the
same position.

In my view, IPv6 adoption should continue to be promoted through technical
assistance, knowledge sharing, capacity building, and collaboration. Those
approaches encourage long-term adoption while allowing operators to
implement IPv6 according to their operational circumstances.

My recommendation would therefore be to keep the IPv4 Soft Landing policy
focused on its original objective of fair IPv4 resource management, while
supporting IPv6 growth through education, operational cooperation, and
community-led initiatives rather than making deployment an eligibility
requirement.

Thank you for considering my perspective.


Kind regards,
Fundiswa Maseko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260713/3519095b/attachment.html>