BTW.Media
Daily editionStrategic Internet Intelligence
Sign InRegister

LACNIC · RIR Watchdog

Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported

Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.

Source facts

Policy ID
LAC-2016-1
RIR
LACNIC
Official status
Abandoned
Normalized status
Abandoned
Introduced
Jan 6, 2016
Last source update
Oct 13, 2026
Coverage
Partial

Who actually shaped the debate?

18Total participants
17Discussion contributors
1Formal actors
22Discussion messages
14.2Effective participants
45.5%Top-five discussion share
6People covering 50%
13People covering 80%

Policy evolution

2
Abandoned · Abandoned
Jan 6, 2016
Source facts ↗

Summary · Changed the directive from a mandatory requirement ('must be required') to an advisory recommendation ('will be advised'). Clarified the specific context as 'disputes when a network or carrier only supports IPv4 and wants to communicate with another network which only supports IPv6' rather than general connectivity. Added rationale regarding future IPv4 scarcity making NAT64 impossible.

Source facts −
of a network (a carrier) only supports IPv4 and wants to communicate with a user of another network (anothe
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
y disputes when a network or carrier only supports IPv4 and wants to communicate with another network which only supports IPv6. The recommendation would be for the user who only suppo
Source facts ↗

Rationale · Expanded the rationale to explain why IPv4-only operators should upgrade: avoiding disputes over who changes infrastructure, noting that NAT64 requires public IPv4 addresses which will become unavailable. Added alignment with future trends like IoT.

Source facts −
t supports only IPv4 must be required to update their infrastructure to support dual stack. Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve) It is important to establish rules to prevent NAT64 solutions as far as possible. Otherwise, such measures will only delay the adoption of IPv6 – the protocol that is to prev
Source facts ↗
Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.

Current text · Updated the policy rule from a proposal to establish a mandatory requirement ('must be required') to an existing rule advising evolution to IPv6 and avoiding NAT64 due to address scarcity.

Source facts −
il in the future. There are likely to be many cases in the not too distant future of disputes over who should make changes in their infrastructure: the user/carrier supporting only IPv4 or the one
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
to an IPv4 network, this operator would need to obtain new IPv4 address blocks in order to implement a NAT64 solution. However, in the long run, IPv4 blocks will no longer be available and it will be impossible to use NAT64. The recommended alternative is for all operators and users to adopt IPv6. This strategy will lead us in the right direction
Source facts ↗

Debate timeline

  1. Introduced

    Introduced

    Source facts ↗

  2. Official version

    1

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗

  3. Official version

    2

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗

  4. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva porpuesta de politica 2015-6// New policy proposal 2015-6//Nova proposta de política 2015-6

    9 Discussion messages · 9 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  5. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Traducciones publicadas de la propuesta 2016-1 / Traduções publicadas da proposta 2016-1 / Translations published of the proposal 2016-1

    5 Discussion messages · 5 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  6. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] nueva version LAC-2016-1//New version LAC-2016-1//Nova versao LAC-2016-1

    5 Discussion messages · 5 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  7. Official decision

    abandoned

    abandoned

    Source facts ↗

Entities

Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.
  1. Carlos Plasencia
    Discussion messages3
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityApr 18, 2016
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies17
    Freshness: Stale

    Identity verified: Sep 20, 2026

    LACNIC · Historical
    wnload TXT PDF DOCX Original language Español Last modified 14/04/2014 Status Implemented 100 %. Authors Juan Alejo - Version [1] Carlos Plasencia - Version [2] In discussion 25/11/2013 Last call for comments 24/01/2014 - 14/02/2014 Ratification by the board 04/03/2014 Ratified 25/03/2014 Implemented 15/08/2014 Compare versions Version 1 Version 2 Summary This pol
    politicas.lacnic.net

    Verified public profiles

    Discussion messages
    3
    First activity
    Jan 8, 2016
    Last activity
    Apr 18, 2016
    First explicit stance
    Unknown
    Latest explicit stance
    Unknown
    Stance changes
    0
    Viewpoint consistency
    Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies
    17

    First explicit stance: Unknown → Latest explicit stance: Unknown · Stance changes: 0

    Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency

    The retained record is overwhelmingly forum-chair procedure: proposal announcements, last calls, agenda summaries, consensus results, ratification notices, and implementation updates. None of the applicable policies contains a safe personal viewpoint comparison, so no across-policy consistency finding is supported.

    Management of Returned Internet Resources

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.

    Conditions: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.

    LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources

    Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.

    Conditions: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.

    LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.

    Conditions: Administrative implementation notices are not treated as votes or endorsements.

    The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.

    Update to the Policy Development Process

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.

    Conditions: A separate retained observation assigned to this policy discusses another proposal's status and does not supply a position on this policy.

    LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process

    Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.

    Conditions: A request for community direction is procedural and is not treated as the sender's vote.

    Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?

    Inter-RIR Transfers

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.

    Conditions: Reported vote totals and status are community outcomes, not personal votes.

    2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED

    IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.

    Conditions: A status change to abandoned is not evidence of the sender's personal opposition.

    The status of proposals ?2015-3 IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks? has changed from ?UNDER DISCUSSION? to ?ABANDONED?.

    Resource Recovery Timeline

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.

    Conditions: Reported vote totals and last-call status are community outcomes, not personal votes.

    2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.

    Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.

    Conditions: A neutral policy summary is not treated as a personal viewpoint.

    2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 Summary: This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force.

    Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.

    Conditions: Soliciting views on approval is not treated as an endorsement or objection.

    We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.

    Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.

    Conditions: Quoting proposal text as a forum chair is treated as procedural transmission.

    The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.- Do you support this policy or are you against it?

    IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.

    Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.

    LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.

    Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.

    Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.

    LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".

    Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.

    Conditions: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.

    Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.

    Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.

    Conditions: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.

    Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.

    Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.

    Conditions: Receipt and agenda notices are procedural evidence only.

    A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.

    Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.

    Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.

    LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.

    Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.

    Conditions: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.

    LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources

    LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    1. Jan 8, 2016 · Procedural or neutral

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva porpuesta de politica 2015-6// New policy proposal 2015-6//Nova proposta de política 2015-6

      A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-1.

      Source facts ↗
    2. Mar 9, 2016 · Procedural or neutral

      [LACNIC/Politicas] nueva version LAC-2016-1//New version LAC-2016-1//Nova versao LAC-2016-1

      Proposal LAC-2016-1 has been updated to version 2.

      Source facts ↗
    3. Apr 18, 2016 · Procedural or neutral

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas a presentar LACNIC 25//Policies to present in LACNIC 25//Política para apresentar no LACNIC 25

      que actualmente se encuentran en discusi?n

      Source facts ↗
    Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2013-3 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2013-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-5 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-6 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-5 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-6 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-7 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistency

    Total policy messages: 35

  2. Gianina Pensky · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJan 12, 2016
    Last activityFeb 24, 2016
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies23
  3. Arturo Servin · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJan 13, 2016
    Last activityMar 10, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies10
  4. Alejandro Guzman · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityMar 9, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies9
  5. Alex Ojeda · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityMay 19, 2016
    Last activityMay 19, 2016
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies11
  6. Ing. Stefanolo · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityMar 10, 2016
    Last activityMar 10, 2016
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies0
  7. "Ing. Martín Marcinkiewiez" · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityMar 10, 2016
    Last activityMar 10, 2016
    First explicit stanceSupport
    Latest explicit stanceSupport
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  8. Ingrid García · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 13, 2016
    Last activityJan 13, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  9. Roque Gagliano
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies2
  10. Juan Alejo Peirano · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies23
  11. CARLOS GUZMAN · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  12. Nicolas Antoniello
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies25
  13. Fred Clark · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 13, 2016
    Last activityJan 13, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  14. José Gutiérrez · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 13, 2016
    Last activityJan 13, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies0
  15. Ariel Weher · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies5
  16. Javier Moreno · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  17. Juan P. Rivera · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJan 8, 2016
    Last activityJan 8, 2016
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies0
  18. Juan José Gaytán Hernández Magro
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0

Sources and coverage

Official policy sources

Public discussion archives

  • lacnic-politicas
    Earliest captured
    Oct 21, 1999
    Latest captured
    Oct 12, 2026
    Last refresh
    Aug 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    5,606
    Known gaps
    26
  • www.lacnic.net
  • lacnic-anuncios
    Earliest captured
    Aug 13, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 7, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,157
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-ietf-lac
    Earliest captured
    May 30, 2013
    Latest captured
    Dec 30, 2015
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    1,133
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-infofrida
    Earliest captured
    Aug 14, 2006
    Latest captured
    Sep 13, 2011
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    292
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-iot
    Earliest captured
    Oct 6, 2015
    Latest captured
    Jul 11, 2017
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    373
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-lacnog
    Earliest captured
    Aug 1, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 9, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 11, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    6,488
    Known gaps
    3
  • lacnic-lactf
    Earliest captured
    Apr 13, 2004
    Latest captured
    Dec 29, 2006
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,267
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-seguridad
    Earliest captured
    Jan 26, 2006
    Latest captured
    Dec 28, 2007
    Last refresh
    Oct 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    1,356
    Known gaps
    0

Coverage

Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Oct 13, 2026

Freshness

Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.

Known gaps

  • politicas.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-politicas: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-anuncios: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-ietf-lac: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-infofrida: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-iot: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-lacnog: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-lactf: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-seguridad: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.