<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 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 <rpd@afrinic.net> 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><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><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><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><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><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><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Jaco</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2026/05/28 10:05, Darwin Da Costa
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:7DED1C3E-6BCB-4414-8F8D-9252540BAE18@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-47107a59-7fff-4143-cbd9-c37e1f9ba95a" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">Dear
PDWG,</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">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:
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01">https://afrinic.net/afpub-2026-v6-001-draft01</a> </div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">We
encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal
contents and provide feedback as follows:</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">a)Do you
support or oppose the proposal?</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">b) If
you oppose the proposal, state your reasons?</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">c) Is
there anything in the proposal that is not clear?</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">d) What
changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><br>
</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">Regards,</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">Vincent
Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa</div><div style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">AFRINIC
PDWG Co-Chairs</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br>RPD@afrinic.net<br>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></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>