Hi Fernando, Thank you for expressing some strong opinions regarding prop-168-v003.
For the benefit of the list, can you give us some background on how you formed these opinions? In particular: 1. "For the main point about the proposal a /23, as it is now, is enough for new entrants to begin with and exist in the internet." 2. "No more space should be given from these pools to account holders who already have some space." 3. "Existing ones, with little IP space such as a /23 have already some means and revenue to transfer in more IP space and continue growing." Were these opinions formed working for an operator in the APNIC community? If so in what capacity, and for how long? Regards, Jon On Tue, 18 Aug 2026, at 03:21, Fernando Frediani wrote: > Hello > > I want to share below the reasons I do NOT support this proposal. > > - First I want to say that I find it very positive and correct the care the > author took to exclude from from this account holders who have transferred > out any IPv4 as also the 5 years for not being able to transfer out resources > received by APNIC. This make proposal more coherent and reduces speculation > around resources numbers. > - I don't think the proposal for a /16 for facilitating IPv6 deployment > should be treated under this same proposal. It is a different topic and > should be treated and discussed separately. > - For the main point about the proposal a /23, as it is now, is enough for > new entrants to begin with and exist in the internet. > - No more space should be given from these pools to account holders who > already have some space. Any space left from APNIC's pool should be given to > new entrants so they privilege more organizations to exist on the internet > rather than concentrate on the existing ones. > - Existing ones, with little IP space such as a /23 have already some means > and revenue to transfer in more IP space and continue growing. They should > not depend on APNIC for that. Allowing that only serves for the propose of > exhaust the little left for these new entrants. I normally tend to think that > for a new organization to exist on the internet a /23 or /22 is little but > Ok. It allows it to establish itself in business and go from there with its > own legs. As the status quo for APNIC is /23 it doesn't sound good move to > change it. > > On discussions about such possible changes on RIRs I tend to think that it > seems that people still didn't understand we are under a heavy IPv4 > exhaustion and simply there aren't IPv4 available for the pace Internet > demand grows. Maybe some think that by adjusting the policy to exhaust the > pool much faster will resolve the issue for some and all it may do is save > some money for those who are able to get this extra tiny chunk of IP space > avoiding them to pay to transfer from the market. This at the cost of new > entrants which makes it unfair in unbalanced in my view given the current > scenario. > People need to learn how to work with less IPv4 on deployments, make better > usage of what they already have instead of keep hoping to receive some extra > space from their RIRs. > > Best regards > Fernando > > On 8/4/2026 9:01 PM, David Mitchell via SIG-policy wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I support this proposal and believe it is clear. >> >> Regards >> >> David Mitchell >> >> >> >> *From:* Bikram Shrestha <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 1 August 2026 4:21 am >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Updated: prop-168-v003: Increase to maximum IPv4 >> delegations >> >> >> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is >> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >> >> Dear SIG members, >> >> A new version of the proposal "prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 >> delegations” has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> Information about earlier versions is available from: >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-168/ >> 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. >> >> prop-168-v003: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposers: >> Christopher Hawker ([email protected]) >> >> 1. Problem statement >> ------------------------- >> As of 29 July 2026, there were 3,013,120 IPv4 addresses (11,770 x /24) in >> the available pool [1]. Since prop-127 was implemented back on 04 April 2019 >> there were 549 new account holders in 2025 (as of 03/12/2025), 667 new >> account holders 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 accounts per year, and if each account holder 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 account holders are required to acquire >> additional space through market transfers or lease address space to meet >> operational >> requirements. >> >> [Note: Full-year new account holder statistics for 2025 were not published >> in the APNIC 2025 Annual Report.] >> >> 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 account holders. This policy change will >> allow a sub-set of account holders 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: >> Account holders who hold less than a /22 may apply for additional space, to >> bring their combined holdings up to and including a /22. >> Account holders who have transferred any IPv4 address space of any size out >> of their 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 an account holder >> received >> an initial delegation and applies for a subsequent delegation, all >> delegations to the account holder 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 account holder. >> >> - 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 /12 IPv4 subnet from the available pool, for the >> purpose of delegating a maximum /24 address block to each new account >> holder, in >> order to assist with IPv4 to IPv6 transitioning once the available pool for >> delegation has been exhausted. IPv4 addresses delegated from this pool are >> ineligible for transfers, and must be returned to APNIC when no longer >> required. Account holders who currently hold or have ever held IPv4 address >> space are ineligible for address space under this policy, except where that >> space was returned to APNIC. Delegations from this pool will be made once >> all other address space available or reserved for general delegation have >> been exhausted. >> >> If an account holder receives an IPv4 delegation under this policy and is >> found to not be using the address space for IPv4-to-IPv6 transitioning, APNIC >> may recover the IPv4 resources from the account holder. >> >> - Delete sentence 2, paragraph 2, section 5.7.2 "Allocations for >> experimental purposes" which currently reads: >> This address space will be unreserved and put back in the general pool after >> five years for delegation to account holders as per IPv4 policy in Section >> 6.0 below. >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> ------------------------------------ >> Advantages: >> - This will help to make additional resources available to organisations 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 accounts >> the benefits of additional space becoming available to account holders >> outweigh the disadvantages of accelerated exhaustion. >> - This may create a sudden rush of new 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 29 July 2026: >> https://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/2026/delegated-apnic-extended-20260729.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 >> >> Regards, >> Bikram, Shaila, and Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://jon.brewer.nz/
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
