Soft Landing, Recovered Space and Priority
Details
| Name of Proposal |
Soft Landing, Recovered Space and Priority |
Status: | Last call (Presented at AF37 24 June 2026) |
|
ID: |
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02 |
Date Submitted: |
16/06/2026 |
|
Author(s): |
Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet[at]theipv6company.com |
Version: |
2.0 |
|
Obsoletes: |
Amends: |
Certain sections in the CPM |
1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
AFRINIC entered Soft Landing Phase 2 in 2020 when it had no more than one /11 of non‑reserved IPv4 space remaining in the final /8. Subsequently, AFRINIC also recovered more than 3 million IPv4 addresses.
According to AFRINIC staff, at the current delegation rate:
-
Approximately 2 years are estimated to deplete the 783,872 IPv4 addresses currently available
-
An additional ~3 years are estimated to deplete the /12 block (around 1 million addresses) reserved by policy for future use
-
Several Resource Members have received more than 8 × /22 within a calendar year by submitting multiple requests up to the maximum /22 prefix size.
The staff asked to the community: Should the recovered 3+ million IPv4 addresses:
-
Automatically fall under the existing Soft-Landing Phase 2 conditions? OR
-
Be subject to a new policy governing how recovered IPv4 space is handled?
Further to that, this policy also resolves possible discrepancies among the Soft-Landing policy and other sections of the CPM.
2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
This proposal suggests that the Soft-Landing policy shall be irreversible and consequently the recovered addresses fall under the existing Soft-Landing Phase 2 existing conditions.
The reasons for this consideration are:
-
The Internet in Africa can still increase the delegation rate, as the different economies keep growing, so probably the burn rate will be faster than forecasted.
-
IPv6 deployment will still need, even when using IPv6-only/IPv6-Mostly scenarios, which are the recommended ones, small IPv4 pools (/22-/24) for every site.
-
An alternative policy to amend the Soft-Landing can take a longer discussion time in the community, so meanwhile, this proposal fills the gap and doesn’t prevent a better choice over the time.
Regarding the discrepancies with other sections of the CPM, the proposal suggests that Soft-Landing is prioritized over the other CPM sections in case of conflict or discrepancies.
Some text reworded for clarity.