[rpd] Updated Policy Proposal - IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03

[Loganaden Velvindron]

On Mon, 09 Nov 2026, 15:17 jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Hi Saul,
>
> The previous version of this proposal was looking for actual IPv6 traffic
> from your customers. The objection was “what happens if you provide IPv6
> and your customers disable it in their LANs or computers or whatever”.
>
> This version is just ensuring that you do your job: you enable IPv6, for
> example, in the CPE of the access network, and of course, you assign a
> prefix to it, so if the customer is willing to use IPv6 from their LANs, it
> actually can do it.
>
> The text “without interference” means the customer “don’t need to ask for
> it”, it is enabled by default. So only customers actually having internal
> routers that disable IPv6 “on purpose” (which may happen in enterprise
> networks), or disabling it in devices in the LAN, will not use IPv6.
>
> Same in the case of a Data Center. You must provide a prefix to your
> customers, if they use it or not is not measured anymore.
>
> I believe the text is clear, but if you prefer some alternative wording,
> we can improve it. Also, if we had the impact analysis from the staff, we
> could see if they are interpreting it correctly or not.
>

There are a number of reasons why customers choose to disable v6. I've
encountered a case where the download speed was better on v4 than on v6.
The enterprise office customer decided to disable v6 to "avoid slow
internet" despite my objection.

Im working closely with vendors and not that many put ipv6 on their
brochure. You have to ask.

Im involved in an upcoming project on ipv6 for edge. Hopefully I will be
able to share details soon.




> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 9 nov 2026, a las 11:31, Saul Stein via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
>
> Hi
> I still don’t support the proposal.
>
> Maybe I am not understanding the wording:
> “In the case of access networks, the percentage of customers that have
> access to global IPv6 delegations “without interference required from the
> Network Operator” must be at or above the following thresholds”
>
> And
> “In the case of content hosting networks, the percentage of assigned IPv4
> space assigned to those networks “also covered by IPv6 assignments” must
> reach:”
>
> What does this mean in practice?
> I can offer v6 to all my customers, but if they don’t want to use it, then
> based on my reading on this, I can’t get more IPv4 space?
> That means my customer base is prejudicing me against getting more v4
> space.
>
> If the policy is simply saying we need to be able to offer clients native
> v6 space, then I’ll support it. However the wording needs to be clearer.
>
> Regards
> Saul
>
>
> *From:* Hendrik Visage via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 26 September 2026 10:49
> *To:* Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Updated Policy Proposal - IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4
> Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03
>
>
> In support of the proposal.
>
> On Wed, 23 Sept 2026, 11:11, Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
>
> We have received an update to the draft policy proposal "IPv6 as a
> criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing" - ID AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03 from author
> Jordi Palet Martinez and new co-author Jaco Kroon on 17 September 2026.
>
>
> The proposal contents are published at:
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft03
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Haitham El Nakhal and Darwin da Costa
> PDWG Co-Chairs
> Policy Development Working Group - AFRINIC
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Hendrik Visage
> hvisage at hevis.co.za
> GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
> InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20261109/d145e834/attachment.html>