<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Jordi,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2026/07/08 13:08, jordi.palet--- via
RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Jaco,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some responses below, in-line.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
<br>
@jordipalet<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>El 8 jul 2026, a las 9:01, Jaco Kroon via RPD
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a> escribió:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p>I'm looping back to this original email, not
because I want to answer here directly, but rather
because I think it's appropriate to consider the
"bigger picture" of responses.</p>
<p>First and foremost, I've seen quite strong opinions
from newly registered @gmail.com addresses. I'd
like to understand the affiliation of these
participants.</p>
<p>In my opinion there are a number of conflicting and
not quite obvious agendas in this, for this, and
against this, policy proposal - all of them with
various commercial impacts for various entities.
Almost none of them to the benefit of the "end
consumer".<br>
</p>
<p>I personally believe the best thing is to retain
the current status quo *as it stands*, as this
leaves operational decisions to the various network
operators rather than enforcing operational issues
by way of policy.</p>
<p>That said, I *personally* do not believe IPv4
should have a future of any kind. Here I'm in
agreement with Jordi that networks should be
deploying as IPv6-first.<br>
<br>
The *reality* however is that the world is
predominantly IPv4 - "everyone" is connected using
IPv4, and I don't (at least not in Africa) see that
this is going to change any time soon. We've been
debating the reasons for this in the office the last
week or two, and I'm not going to bore you with the
details, but our opinion is that this is not because
networks and techies don't want to switch but
because customers (yes, you read that right) demands
that we don't. When you deploy DNS for a customer -
just dare try and ask for AAAA details when only
provided with A details and see the response you
get. Usually from people that should *know better*.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I disagree, not true anymore. Measurements from Google,
Meta, APNIC, Akamai, etc., show 50% and none of them is
able to measure the traffic in China (where they have
strict mandates for IPv6-only), so worldwide, we are
closer to 65-70%.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In addition to that, there is something that we never
count on measurements, in terms of actual terabits. All
the traffic from CDNs is measured only “once” (when it is
cached), but if users have IPv6, they will get as many
copies with IPv6 as users accessing that content. This is
the reason why IX can’t measure CDN traffic and often they
are showing much lower real data.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
None of which gives the registry the rights to dictate to net-ops.
Nor were I referring to any of the names you're mentioning, and I
specifically refrained from - and will continue to refrain from -
naming names.<br>
<br>
Your entire argument is valid, but doesn't address my statement that
real-world customers (at least in Africa) absolutely resist IPv6.
Now you're dictating to netops that they must dictate to their
customers. Y ou cannot do that. That's not the purpose of a
registry. Nor should it be.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p>When people run speedtest (which I understand
measures only L7 throughput) and they get a lower
value on IPv6 than on IPv4 ... what's the next thing
that happens? User logs into router, find the
"disable IPv6" button (or equivalent) *click*.<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>If you get lower measurements with IPv6 there is some
deployment issue, either in the access, distribution,
BNGs, or even upstreams. This is not only creating this
“slower effect”, but also Happy Eyeballs entering into
action and falling back to IPv4. One of the reasons that I
mention in a previous email a few days ago which means
that instead of having 70-90% IPv6 traffic you may be
getting only 30%.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Right. Let's take a 1Gbps ethernet link. Max sizes packets, no
VLANs.<br>
<br>
ipg = <span class="T286Pc" data-sfc-cp="" data-sfc-root="ep"
data-sfc-cb="" data-complete="true"><span class="Yjhzub"
data-sfc-root="ep" data-sfc-cb="" data-complete="true">96-bit
times aka 12 bytes</span></span><br>
preamble = 8<br>
eth header = 14<br>
payload = 1500 (ipv4=20, ipv6=40, tcp=20, so payload for v4 = 1460
for v6 1440, excluding crypto overhead which may apply).<br>
trailer = 4 bytes.<br>
<br>
That means at max packets we can use:<br>
<br>
packets per second = 1E9 / ((12 + 8 + 14 + 1500 + 4) * 8)<br>
= 1E9 / (1538 * 8)<br>
= 81274.38231<br>
<br>
Which means:<br>
<br>
IPv4 rate = 81274.38231 * 1460 = 118660598.17260B/s =
949284785.38080bps = 949.28Mbps (which is what we're typically
seeing on 1Gbps services through speedtest).<br>
IPv6 rate = 81274.38231 * 1440 = 117035110.52640B/s =
936280884.21120bpx = 936.28Mbps (which a customer is saying Oh I'm
getting lower performance on IPv6 compared to IPv4 .. *off*).<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Geoff Huston do lots of measurements that show that
IPv6 typically is faster (not because the protocol itself,
but just because the lack of NAT and CGN, as well as
because often it is deployed much better than keeping the
older IPv4 configs).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This techs all over the world (myself included) will agree with
you, but the only measure that matters to customers (and many an
"IT Professional") is Ookla Speedtest.</p>
<p>Absolutely irrelevant. You're still dictating network design and
architecture to entities that's not you, something you have no
right to do.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is the thing. When you deploy IPv4, you really
check everything, ensure a good monitoring, etc., right?
Well, we like it or not, I see many IPv6 deployments
really broken. Again lack of expertise in real deployment
and good knowledge of standards.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Well ... here I get where you're coming from, and I have to
concede that - but this isn't the case on all networks. Again,
irrelevant to the discussion.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p> Okay, so follow the (apparent) European standard
of users may not have access to their routers where
they're forced to have IPv6 on and can do nothing
about it ... had a discussion the other day with
someone in Europe about this, "I get better
throughput by putting my own router behind that of
my ISP and running IPv4 only on my own network" -
where there's v6 only ... well, I've yet to hear/see
about that end-network. Some core networks sure
I've heard of that.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is probably from someone misinformed. In fact, since
many years ago EU regulations enforce the provider to give
complete access to the CPE, and even be able to replace it
with your own, etc.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Uhrm. Again, can't disclose, but no. Two cases. The one I know
from face to face direct, and can confirm that no access to the
router was available. Ports aren't even opened towards LAN side.
The other case was from a reputable developer who works on one of
the Linux distributions.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A911B6FA-84D5-46EA-A0AF-CEECEEC80426@consulintel.es">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p>As much as I hate to say this: IPv4 is going to be
with us for a while. And we should encourage
deployment of IPv6, but I don't think we can enforce
that by way of policy as this is interfering with
network operational decisions/designs. I also
strongly disagree with apparent stances I've
observed hinting that we should make the soft
landing more lax as that just drives up costs for
everyone much sooner and faster, and in a world
where everyone I communicate with are already
complaining about the cost of stuff I don't think
that's fair either.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
So we prefer instead of our own policies at our own pace,
government regulations?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm just saying your way isn't in my opinion the way to get this
done. You're adding significant additional operational issues to
measure metrics that networks honestly shouldn't have to need to
care about, burdening network operators that's already suffering
from an over-abundance of stupid.</p>
<p>I'm also saying that going the other way and completely loosening
the soft-landing is even more absurd as it would have the side
effect of blocking new entrants into the market (bad for consumer)
much sooner, and make entering into the market much more expensive
for new players.</p>
At best you can state that the network operator has to be able to
show which proportion of their network is IPv6 capable, and what
portion of customers has access to IPv6 if they so choose. You
cannot dictate that networks has to force IPv6 onto their customers
who don't want it, and you most certainly (at least in Africa)
cannot measure uptake based on traffic percentage. I've included
the reasoning on this into a presentation earlier in the year, and
have managed to consolidate the different measures to within roughly
1% to explain the discrepancies between a couple various measuring
methodologies.<br>
<br>
This would put my own network at 99.885 % measurement. But if I use
your measurements we're below 10% - not because we've not done our
part, but because:<br>
<br>
a) Consumer networks accessing services hosted on our network is
IPv4 only;<br>
b) Customers are actively switching OFF IPv6 on the services they
procure from us; and<br>
c) Customers that host services on our network aren't deploying
AAAA records, even when we push them to do so. In many cases we
don't even know what all the names are that's being set to the
relevant IP space.<br>
<p>You are now aiming to punish our (and other networks in a similar
situation to ours) because of other's behaviour.<br>
<br>
If I need to choose between that and government regulation ... I
think I might go fishing instead.</p>
Kind regards,<br>
Jaco
</body>
</html>