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
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 (anotheSource 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 suppoSource 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 prevSource 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 oneSource 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 directionSource facts ↗
Debate timeline
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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗
Entities
Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.
- Discussion messages3First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityApr 18, 2016First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies17
- Gianina Pensky · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages2First activityJan 12, 2016Last activityFeb 24, 2016First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies23
- Arturo Servin · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages2First activityJan 13, 2016Last activityMar 10, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies10
- Alejandro Guzman · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages2First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityMar 9, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies9
- Alex Ojeda · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityMay 19, 2016Last activityMay 19, 2016First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies11
- Ing. Stefanolo · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityMar 10, 2016Last activityMar 10, 2016First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies0
- "Ing. Martín Marcinkiewiez" · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityMar 10, 2016Last activityMar 10, 2016First explicit stanceSupportLatest explicit stanceSupportStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Ingrid García · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 13, 2016Last activityJan 13, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Discussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies2
- Juan Alejo Peirano · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies23
- CARLOS GUZMAN · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Discussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies25
- Fred Clark · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 13, 2016Last activityJan 13, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- José Gutiérrez · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 13, 2016Last activityJan 13, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies0
- Ariel Weher · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies5
- Javier Moreno · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Juan P. Rivera · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 8, 2016Last activityJan 8, 2016First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Discussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies0Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.
Last research attempt: Sep 19, 2026
Identity verified: Sep 19, 2026
· Historical Authors Juan José Gaytán Hernández Magro - Version [1, 2]
politicas.lacnic.netVerified public profiles
- Discussion messages
- 0
- First activity
- Unknown
- Last activity
- Unknown
- First explicit stance
- Unknown
- Latest explicit stance
- Unknown
- Stance changes
- 0
- Viewpoint consistency
- No explicit position stated
- Other policies
- 0
First explicit stance: Unknown → Latest explicit stance: Unknown · Stance changes: 0
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
- Oct 12, 2026
author
Source facts ↗
Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2016-1 · Unknown · No explicit position statedTotal policy messages: 0
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.