Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-165, based on a meeting we organized on 25th Aug to discuss these proposals. This feedback is sent on my behalf, but please note that it is a summary of the discussions among the 7 Japanese community members who attended the meeting. Almost neutral opinions were expressed from the attendees about this proposal. (comment details) - Originally, the allocation of the last /8 was intended to promote IPv6 adoption. it might help determine its acceptance if the proposer gives us the difference between the Last /8 case and this proposal. - How is "complete transition" defined? Who will determine when the transition is complete, and how? - I am concerned this could make obtaining IPv4 addresses easier than under the current policy. - I do not see what problems this proposal solves or how it advances the situation. Specific use cases might help assess its necessity. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team 2025年8月25日(月) 12:11 Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy <[email protected]>: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-165-v002: Provision of IPv4 Address Space > to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional Purpose" has been sent to the Policy > SIG for review. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-165 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > Regards, > > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > prop-165-v002: Provision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for > Transitional Purpose > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Proposers: Tomohiro Fujisaki ([email protected]) > > Hiroki Kawabata ([email protected]) > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > -------------------- > > This proposal seeks to allow organizations that meet the criteria for > receiving IPv6 address space to also receive a limited IPv4 allocation, > specifically a /24 block, upon request. The aim is to facilitate the > deployment of IPv6-only networks, which still require limited IPv4 resources > for transitional purposes such as DNS resolution. > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > ----------------------------- > > The proposal is based on the following considerations: > > - Increasing Adoption of IPv6-Only Networks: > > While IPv6-only networks are gaining traction, many essential Internet > services such as DNS, email gateways, or external monitoring still require > limited IPv4 connectivity. This policy enables IPv6-only network operators to > obtain minimal IPv4 resources for such transitional needs. > > - Difficulty in Meeting IPv4 Allocation Criteria: > > Entities building new IPv6-only networks may find it difficult to meet > current APNIC criteria for IPv4 address allocation. Given that IPv6 > allocations are often readily granted to existing IPv4 holders, it is > reasonable to offer a reciprocal policy that provides minimal IPv4 space to > new IPv6 operators. > > - Paradigm Shift Towards IPv6: > > APNIC policy already allows IPv6 address allocations without requiring IPv6 > deployment justification from existing IPv4 holders. This proposal introduces > a similar policy in reverse, marking a step forward in aligning IPv6 and IPv4 > policy frameworks and encouraging broader IPv6 deployment. > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > ----------------------------- > > No similar policy currently exists in other RIRs, though the operational need > for transitional IPv4 use in IPv6-only networks is recognized. This proposal > may serve as a model for other RIRs seeking to support IPv6 deployment. > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > --------------------------- > > - LIRs qualifying for IPv6 initial address allocations may request an IPv4 > /24. > > - The IPv4 block must be used only for IPv6-only network support. > > - The IPv4 block must be returned simultaneously if the IPv6 address obtained > as its basis is returned. > > - The IPv4 address delegated under this proposal must be returned to APNIC > once a complete transition to an IPv6-only network has been successfully > achieved. > > - The IPv4 /24 obtained under this policy shall be included in the IPv4 > address space available under the final /8 policy. > > - The block is non-transferable and cannot be leased. > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - Encourages real-world IPv6-only deployment. > > - Provides practical support with minimal IPv4 resource usage. > > - Aligns IPv4 and IPv6 policy logic. > > > Disadvantages: > > - Slight increase in IPv4 allocations (limited to /24). > > - Requires APNIC to enforce usage restrictions. > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > ----------------------------- > > Minimal impact expected. Only a single /24 allocation per eligible IPv6 PA > applicant, with restrictions to prevent misuse. > > > 7. References > > ------------- > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
