<html aria-label="message body"><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Seun, Musa,<div><br></div><div>Responding once for both of you.</div><div><br></div><div>In my slides I’ve 3 slides to respond to the points of the impact assestment. We can clarify all during the presentation.</div><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div>
<div>Regards,<br>Jordi<br><br>@jordipalet<br></div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>El 24 jun 2026, a las 0:21, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Hi Jordi,<div><br></div><div>I understand it might be late to put in an updated draft, but it would be good to know how you plan to address the comments raised in the impact assessment </div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 at 16:25, Madhvi Gokool via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><p>Hello Stephen</p><p>There seems to be an issue with the first version of the proposal
on the website. We'll ensure it's fixed the soonest.</p><p>Please note that the author submitted a revised version of the
proposal - <a href="https://afrinic.net/participate/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft02" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/participate/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft02</a>
and that the latter will be discussed during the AFRINIC-37 PPM.</p><p>Kind Regards</p><p>Madhvi</p><p>Policy Liaison AFRINIC</p>
<div>On 24/06/2026 00:25, Musa Stephen
Honlue wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<span id="cid:ii_19ef68ff79ca74afaf01"><image0.png></span><br id="m_-4224853395398901649lineBreakAtBeginningOfSignature">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-4224853395398901649AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">This is what the link is
showing, please confirm that you have access.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 28 May 2026, at 12:27, Sami Salih
<a href="mailto:sami.salih@outlook.com" target="_blank"><sami.salih@outlook.com></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
Hi Jordi, colleagues,</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
Thank you, Jordi, for considering my previous comments and
for restructuring this into a more focused proposal.</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
In principle, I support linking IPv4 allocations under the
Soft Landing policy with commitment toward IPv6 deployment.
Given the IPv4 exhaustion reality, this is a reasonable
policy direction.</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
I also appreciate the additional clarifications regarding
the existing policy references and deployment expectations.
Nevertheless, I believe the implementation and enforcement
aspects may still require further refinement to ensure the
criteria remain objective, measurable, and operationally
practical across the AFRINIC service region. I believe the
staff analysis may further help clarify the operational
feasibility, compliance verification approach, and
enforcement practicality of the proposed requirements.</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
Overall, I support the intent of the proposal and appreciate
the more granular approach to the discussion.</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
With Regards,</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
Sami Salih.</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div id="m_-4224853395398901649ms-outlook-mobile-body-separator-line" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_-4224853395398901649ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">
Sami Salih</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_-4224853395398901649divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> jordi.palet--- via RPD
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"><rpd@afrinic.net></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:21:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"><rpd@afrinic.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft
Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Hi Jaco,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tks, next version will use: “Any IPv4 request must be
done with a simultaneous IPv6 request if the requesting
party does not already have IPv6 space.” This may depend
on the impact analysis inputs, of course.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>About the determination/measurement that this is being
done, let me explain how I see this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The existing 6.5.1.1 (for LIRs) and 6.8.2, already set
the conditions to be met. AFRINIC already has, in both
cases, a 12 months period to confirm the deployment. May
be is not sufficiently clear there if AFRINIC should do
something if that’s not actually done. We aren’t talking
there only about announcing the prefix, but also in the
case of LIRs, about making assignments to end-sites, and
the text is clear, /48s, nothing different. There is no
reason for using different sizes for different type of
customers on that text. There is no technical reason at
all for not doing it correctly, however, this is a
discussion for amending that part of the policy, not for
this proposal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What this proposal wants to make sure is that you
*actually*, *following existing policy*, if you get IPv4,
you really deploy IPv6 in 12 months. To reinforce it I
explicitly mention “In addition …”, as you said. Note that
“in addition” section enforces a more detailed work from
the member requesting IPv4, to justify a credible IPv6
addressing and deployment plan, this will be accepted or
not by AFRINIC, as with any request evaluation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, in many RIRs, not just AFRINIC, I’ve
observed that many members get by default a /32, even if
they have 800.000 end-sites. Clearly wrong, they didn’t
have done any real addressing plan and they will end up
providing a single /64 to each end-site. If they do it
correctly, they will soon discover why they should use
/48s, so with a /32 they can only cover around 50.000
customers, which means that typically for 800.000 of
customers (depending on the topological distribution of
the network) will mean that they need a /27-/28.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don’t think nobody can say “deploy” is not clear. If
this is the case, we can improve it, something like “and
IPv6 is actually being used”. We can even set a minimum
level of traffic, such as 50% for example? Those that have
deployed IPv6 know that, at least in the case of
residential and cellular customers, because most of the
traffic (typically 75-90%) is from big CDNs, caches, and
contend providers (all google, all Meta, Akamai and all
the other CDNs), already provide IPv6, when you turn on
IPv6 in an end-site, the IPv6 traffic of that end-site
becomes 75%-90% IPv6, in turn the total ISP traffic
reaches similar levels.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So asking for 50% seems to me conservative, but I’m
happy for lower levels, if we agree that we can ask for
more later on. We can even consider something like 25%
after 12 months, 50% after 24 months, 75% after 48 months.
Just an example.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Finally, as we have many policies that AFRINIC not
necessarily is measuring the compliance, that’s what the
other proposal (compliance dashboard) was already trying
to resolve, now in a “light” version.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This proposal also added a trigger (failure to comply)
to ensure that abuse (requesting IPv4, but then not
deploying IPv6) can enact the RSA terms, because clearly
shows that there is a policy breach.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By the way, dynamic prefixes in IPv6 is broken,
terrible idea, specially if there are power outages.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I suggest to read what, hopefully in a few months, will
become in RFC/BCP a successor of RIPE690:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-prefix-to-end-sites/" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-prefix-to-end-sites/</a></div>
<div><br id="m_-4224853395398901649x_lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div>
<div>Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>El 28 may 2026, a las 11:43, Jaco Kroon
<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" target="_blank"><jaco@uls.co.za></a> escribió:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div><p>Hi Jordi,</p><p>I support the principle very much.
Practicality may be a different story, yes, must
implement v6, however:</p><p>How do you determine/measure that? I think
your "In addition" section addresses this to a
degree.</p><p>Merely advertising IPv6 space? Sure, that's
easy, but it doesn't mean I have to actually
make that available to customers.</p><p>Re proposed text, the word "However, " doesn't
add value, merely "Any IPv4 request must be done
with a simultaneous IPv6 request if the
requesting party does not already have IPv6
space."</p><p>This does also be the question, it seems
6.5.1.1.3 states that you must give /48s to end
sites - we do distinguish between business and
home users, for business we happily do /48 if so
required (at least we reserve a /48 per site
minimum), but for home users we generally do
dynamically allocated /56 (but will again do /48
on request) - would this imply failure to comply
with your proposed policy? If so, should the
proposed policy be adjusted, or 6.5.1.1.3?</p><p>For PI space (6.8.2.2.d) - what does deployed
mean?</p>
<div>
<div style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-family:"Open Sans""><p style="font-size:large;padding-left:10px;padding-top:3px">Kind
regards,<br>
Jaco Kroon<br>
<br>
On 2026/05/28 10:28, jordi.palet--- via RPD
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi all,
Somehow this is a response to Sami input on a previous proposal.
This way we can split the problem space in 2 proposals, which may reach consensus without depending one on the other.
So we have a very basic question: If we believe that the members that receive IPv4 out of the Soft Landing policy, must implement IPv6, or not?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>El 28 may 2026, a las 10:05, Darwin Da Costa <a href="mailto:dacostadarwin@gmail.com" target="_blank"><dacostadarwin@gmail.com></a> escribió:
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:
<a href="https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01</a>
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
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a>
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
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>RPD mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span></i><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br>RPD@afrinic.net<br>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>