LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4 transfers
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-2020-1
- RIR
- LACNIC
- Official status
- Abandoned
- Normalized status
- Abandoned
- Introduced
- Mar 31, 2021
- Last source update
- Oct 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
Qualifying IPv6 resources for transfer recipients · The IPv6 prerequisite was broadened from an operational IPv6 allocation issued by LACNIC to an operational IPv6 allocation or assignment issued by either LACNIC or a provider.
Source facts −
The objective of this proposal is to add as a requirement for organizations in process of receiving transferred IPv4 space under 2.3.2.18 to show they have an IPv6 allocation by LACNIC operational on their networks.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The objective of this proposal is to add as a requirement for organizations in process of receiving transferred IPv4 space under 2.3.2.18 to show they have an IPv6 allocation/assignment by LACNIC or a provider and that is operational on their networks.Source facts ↗
IPv6-requirement waiver when IPv4 cannot be supplied · A new waiver was added allowing a transfer of up to a /22 without satisfying the IPv6 requirement when LACNIC cannot meet a new entrant's IPv4 request.
Source facts −
In the case the receiver provides a written statement from its upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement may be waived.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.Source facts ↗
IPv6-connectivity waiver for IPv4 transfer recipients · The old text required both a written statement from the recipient's upstream provider or providers that IPv6 connectivity was unavailable and justification that other means were not technically acceptable. The new text removes the latter justification requirement, leaving the written upstream statement as the stated basis for potentially waiving the IPv6 requirement.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Removal from an IPv4 waiting list after a successful transfer · The old text required an organization on any LACNIC IPv4-resource waiting list to be removed from that list upon a successful transfer. The new text omits this requirement.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4 space, or the organization does not hold any IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
If LACNIC is not able to meet a request using the reserved pool under 11.1 conditions the requesting organization will be permitted to transfer an IPv4 space equivalent of maximum of /22 and the IPv6 requirement may be waived.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
If LACNIC is not able to meet a request using the reserved pool under 11.1 conditions, or the organization does not hold any IPv4 space the requesting organization will be permitted to transfer an IPv4 space equivalent of maximum of /22 and the IPv6 requirement may be waived.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Timetable - References A similar proposal has been presented in ARIN: • https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_19/ Work is been done in regards to this proposal in other RIRs to present equivalent proposals there.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The term “significant parts of the network” refers to the segments of the network which are responsible for delivering IPv6 connectivity to the end-user or a downstream and not only to core or border equipment which do not have a direct relationship in providing IPv6 connectivity to end-user or downstream.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Debate timeline
Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2020-1
8 Discussion messages · 1 Entities
Source facts ↗
Entities
- Discussion messages8First activityApr 11, 2021Last activityApr 14, 2021First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies5
- Discussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies2
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- lacnic-politicas
- Earliest captured
- Oct 21, 1999
- Latest captured
- Oct 8, 2026
- Last refresh
- Aug 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 5,328
- Known gaps
- 26
- www.lacnic.net
- lacnic-anuncios
- Earliest captured
- Aug 13, 2026
- Latest captured
- Oct 7, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,107
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-ietf-lac
- Earliest captured
- May 30, 2013
- Latest captured
- Dec 30, 2015
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 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 10, 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 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 373
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-lacnog
- Earliest captured
- Aug 1, 2026
- Latest captured
- Oct 8, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 6,063
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-lactf
- Earliest captured
- Apr 13, 2004
- Latest captured
- Dec 29, 2006
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 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 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,356
- Known gaps
- 0
Coverage
Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Oct 10, 2026
Freshness
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.
