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

[Seun Ojedeji]

This response seem similar to the response from nndemo at staff.zegu.ac.zw

Regards
----
Sent from my mobile
kindly excuse typos

On Mon, 13 Jul 2026, 10:42 am Simphiwe Ngubane via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Dear PDWG,
>
> I agree with Alain’s response because it maintains a necessary distinction
> between the role of registry policy and the realities of network
> operations. The purpose of the IPv4 Soft Landing policy should remain
> centered on the coordination and management of scarce Internet number
> resources, rather than introducing operational conditions tied to IPv6
> deployment.
>
> I also agree that IPv6 adoption across the region cannot be measured only
> through deployment statistics. Many operators may already be investing in
> infrastructure upgrades, staff training, network planning, and transition
> readiness, even where large-scale IPv6 traffic is not yet visible.
> Deployment decisions are influenced by operational readiness, commercial
> priorities, customer demand, equipment lifecycles, and local market
> conditions, all of which vary significantly across the AFRINIC service
> region.
>
> Importantly, the IPv4 Soft Landing policy was developed to address IPv4
> scarcity and allocation management. While IPv6 adoption remains an
> important objective for the long-term sustainability of the Internet, using
> IPv4 allocation policy as a mechanism to drive deployment risks combining
> two distinct policy goals. Resource coordination and technology adoption
> are related, but they are not the same function.
>
> In my view, policies work best when they remain focused on their narrow
> coordination purpose while allowing operators the flexibility to determine
> the most practical technical path for their networks. Linking IPv4
> eligibility to IPv6 deployment could unintentionally disadvantage smaller
> or resource-constrained operators that are actively preparing for
> transition but are not yet in a position to deploy at scale.
>
> Encouraging IPv6 through technical cooperation, implementation experience,
> training, knowledge sharing, and operational forums is likely to produce
> more sustainable progress than introducing deployment requirements into
> resource management policies. Long-term IPv6 success depends on the
> readiness of the broader ecosystem, including network operators, vendors,
> content providers, transit providers, and end-user environments.
>
> For these reasons, I support keeping the IPv4 Soft Landing policy
> technically neutral, operationally realistic, and aligned with the diverse
> needs of networks across the AFRINIC region. RIRs are most effective when
> they remain neutral coordinators of Internet number resources while
> enabling, rather than prescribing, the evolution of network technologies.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Simphiwe Ngubane
> MSc in Engineering UCT
> (My views are my own in given in my personal capacity and do not form part
> of any affiliation or representation to the University of Cape Town)
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260717/fcf457c4/attachment.html>