Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share key feedback from our community regarding prop-168, based on a meeting we organized on 24th Aug to discuss these proposals. Please note that this is a summary of the discussions among the 17 Japanese community members who attended the meeting. Overall, participants expressed mostly negative opinions toward this proposal. (Comment details) - Several participants expressed concern that the APNIC community has repeatedly discussed changing IPv4 delegation sizes over the years. There was a general feeling that continuing to revisit the allocation size is no longer productive. - While some acknowledged the motivation to reduce reliance on IPv4 leasing, participants questioned whether increasing the maximum delegation size is the appropriate policy mechanism to address that issue. - Some participants felt that changing the delegation size depending on the period creates inconsistency in resource management policy. - Concerns were raised that the proposal could significantly restrict address transfer flexibility by extending the five-year transfer restriction to all IPv4 resources held by an organization after receiving an additional allocation. - Several participants questioned the practical effectiveness of the proposal, given the limited remaining IPv4 address pool. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team 2026年8月1日(土) 2:12 Bikram Shrestha <[email protected]>: > 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] -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
