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-168, based on a meeting we organized on 22nd Jan to discuss these proposals. Please note that it is a summary of the discussions among the 11 Japanese community members who attended the meeting. Many opposing opinions were expressed from the attendees about this proposal. (comment details) - The proposal states that expanding the maximum allocation size would allow organizations that need additional addresses to avoid transfers or leasing. However, addressing leasing-related issues by changing the allocation size does not appear to be an appropriate approach. - Several proposals to modify IPv4 allocation sizes have been submitted in the past, and there is a sense of fatigue regarding repeated discussions of this topic. Greater effort should be directed toward IPv6 deployment rather than continued debate over IPv4. - From a policy perspective, it is undesirable for allocation sizes to vary depending on the time period. This proposal may simply accelerate IPv4 exhaustion by a few years. - According to APNIC’s transfer request list, only around 10% of organizations request address blocks of /23 or smaller. Therefore, it is unlikely that this proposal would often lead to additional allocations for organizations whose historical maximum allocation was /23. - Expanding the allocation size while reserving a new /16 pool for transfers appears inconsistent with the stated objective of distributing addresses more broadly. - If expanding the allocation size demonstrably reduces reliance on leasing, then support for the proposal would be warranted. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team 2025年12月18日(木) 10:12 顧靜恆 <[email protected]>: > > Dear SIG members, > > > > A new proposal "prop-168-v001: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations" has been > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 61 on > Wednesday, 11 February 2026. > > > > https://2026.apricot.net/programme/programme#/day/8/ > > > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > before the OPM. > > > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of > the Policy Development Process (PDP). > > We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: > > > > Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > > > Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > > tell the community about your situation. > > > > Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > > > > Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > > > > What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > > > Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-168 > > > > Regards, > > Bikram, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > prop-168-v001: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposers: > > Christopher Hawker ([email protected]) > > > > 1. Problem statement > > ------------------------- > > As of 09 December 2025, there were 3,142,656 IPv4 addresses (12,276 x /24) in > the available pool [1]. > > Since prop-127 was implemented back on 04 April 2019 there were 549 new > members in 2025 (as of 03/12/2025), 667 new members in 2024 [2], > > 904 in 2023 [3], 824 in 2022 [4], 783 in 2021 [5], 827 in 2020 [6] and 841 in > 2019 [7] (noting that this also includes Q1 2024 which was prior to > implementation of prop-127). > > At the current average of 727 new member accounts per year, and if each > member was to apply for the maximum delegation of /23, > > the delegation rate would be approximately 1454 x /24 per year, meaning the > pool will be exhausted in 2035. > > This means that resources will sit idle in the available pool for an extended > period (up to 9 years), while current members are required to acquire > > additional space through market transfers or lease address space to meet > operational requirements. > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > ---------------------------------- > > Current address policy only allows for the maximum delegation of up to and > including a /23 to new and existing members. > > This policy change will allow organisations who became members since the > implementation of prop-127 and with less than an aggregated /22 to receive an > additional > > delegation of up to a maximum of a /22 IPv4 delegation. > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > -------------------------------- > > - The maximum size aggregate a member in the ARIN region may qualify for at > any one time a maximum is a /22 [8]. > > - "The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC is limited > to a maximum of 256 IPv4 addresses (a single /24)." [9] > > - Exhaustion Phase 2 (section 5.4.3.2) in AFRINIC's Consolidated Policy > Manual states that the "maximum will be /22 per allocation/assignment" [10]. > > - LACNIC's Policy Manual lists under section 11.1.4 "Policies Relating to the > Exhaustion of IPv4 Address Space" that the maximum size a new member may > > receive is a /22, while under 11.1.2 it states that existing members are > ineligible for additional space under this policy [11]. > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > -------------------------------- > > Update "APNIC-127 APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies" with the below: > > > > - Delete paragraphs 2 and 3 from section 6.1 "Minimum and maximum IPv4 > delegations", and replace with the following: > > Members who hold less than a /22 may apply for additional space, to bring > their combined holdings up to and including a /22. > > Members who have transferred any IPv4 address space of any size out of their > member account are ineligible for further delegations from APNIC. > > > > - Delete paragraph 4 from section 11.0 "IPv4 Transfers", and replace with the > following: > > Addresses delegated from the available pool cannot be transferred for a > minimum of five years from the date of delegation. > > If a member received an initial delegation and applies for a subsequent > delegation, all delegations to the member cannot be transferred for a minimum > of 5 years > > from the date of the most recent delegation. > > > > - Update point 4 from paragraph 1 under section 11.1.1 "Conditions on the > space to be transferred" as below: > > Addresses delegated from the available pool cannot be transferred for a > minimum of five years from the date the original delegation was made. > > If the source entity received a delegation from APNIC within the last 5 > years, any resources delegated from the available pool (including those > delegated over 5 years ago) > > cannot be transferred for a minimum of 5 years from the date the most recent > delegation was made. > > > > - Delete paragraph 3 from section 11.2.1 "Conditions on the space to be > transferred" and replace with the following: > > Some RIRs, including APNIC, have restrictions against the transfer of certain > address blocks. > > APNIC policy does not allow the transfer of address space delegated from the > available pool to be transferred for a minimum of five years from the date of > the most > > recent delegation to the member. > > > > - Delete paragraph 2 from section 14.0 "Mergers & Acquisitions" and replace > with the following: > > Addresses delegated from the available pool cannot be transferred for a > minimum of five years from the date of the most recent delegation from the > available pool. > > > > - Add new section 5.1.5 "Reservation for IPv4 to IPv6 Transitioning": > > APNIC will reserve a /16 from the available pool, for the purpose of > delegating to members in order to assist with IPv4 to IPv6 transitioning once > the available pool > > has been exhausted. Addresses delegated from this pool are ineligible for > transfers, and must be returned to APNIC when no longer required. > > > > If a member receives a delegation under this policy and is found to not be > using the address space for IPv4-to-IPv6 transitioning, APNIC may recover the > resources from the member. > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > ------------------------------------ > > Advantages: > > - This will help to make additional resources available to members who need > it, that would otherwise need to acquire space through market transfers or > lease address space. > > > > Disadvantages: > > - This policy will accelerate the exhaustion of IPv4 address space, however, > given the slow rate of new memberships > > the benefits of additional space becoming available to members outweigh the > disadvantages of accelerated exhaustion. > > - This may create a sudden rush of members in applications for additional > resources, leading to extended waiting times for the assessment of > applications. > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > ----------------------------------- > > No known impacts to resource holders. > > > > 7. References > > ---------------- > > [1] APNIC Delegation Statistics as of 09 December 2025: > https://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/2025/delegated-apnic-extended-20251209.gz > > [2] Page 22, APNIC 2024 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/APNIC-AR-2024.pdf > > [3] Page 19, APNIC 2023 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/APNIC_AR_2023.pdf > > [4] Page 17, APNIC 2022 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/APNIC_AR_2022_FINAL.pdf > > [5] Page 17, APNIC 2021 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/APNIC_AR_2021.pdf > > [6] Page 18, APNIC 2020 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APNIC-2020-Annual-Report.pdf > > [7] Page 30, APNIC 2019 Activity Report: > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/APNIC-AR-2019-FINAL.pdf > > [8] ARIN Waitlist, Number Resource Policy Manual, ARIN: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-8-arin-waitlist > > [9] Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs, IPv4 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region, RIPE NCC: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-826/#51-allocations-made-by-the-ripe-ncc-to-lirs > > [10] Soft Landing, Consolidated Policy Manual, AFRINIC: > https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#Soft-Landing > > [11] Policies relating to the Exhaustion of IPv4 Address Space, LACNIC Policy > Manual: > https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-21.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
