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

[Simphiwe Ngubane]

Good morning Seun,

To the best of my knowledge I've only posted once or twice on this platform. I'm comparatively knew to the forum.

In terms of the similarity you allude to, I should think it well spotted as we both, from my understanding, object/ed to the new policy proposal. Fundamentally, as an objection to IPv6 enforcement creep through IPv4 policy.

Kind Regards
Simphiwe Ngubane

________________________________
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 2:10:59 pm
To: Simphiwe Ngubane <NGBSIM008 at myuct.ac.za>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.

CAUTION: This email originated outside the UCT network. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you know and trust the source.

This response seem similar to the response from nndemo at staff.zegu.ac.zw<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/4684f837/attachment-0001.html>