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-169, 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 generally supportive opinions toward this proposal. (Comment details) - Participants considered that the proposal aligns the policy text with the way APNIC currently evaluates IPv4 requests in practice. - No significant operational or policy concerns were raised during the discussion. - Since the proposal primarily clarifies the existing policy rather than changing allocation practices, participants considered it a reasonable editorial improvement. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team 2026年7月13日(月) 14:02 Bikram Shrestha <[email protected]>: > Dear SIG members, > > A new proposal "prop-169-v001: Aligning IPv4 LIR Needs Assessment with > Current IPv4 Delegation Policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 62 on > Thursday, 10 September 2026. > > https://conference.apnic.net/62/program/program/index.html#/day/7/ > > 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-169/> > > Regards, > > Bikram, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Aligning IPv4 LIR Needs Assessment with Current IPv4 Delegation Policy > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Saima Nisar > [email protected] > > 1. Problem statement > ------------------------------------------------------- > Section 6.2.1 of APNIC-127 still requires an LIR to demonstrate a detailed > plan for use of at least a /23 within one year. However, under the current > IPv4 delegation framework, the delegation being assessed may be smaller, > such as a /24. This creates uncertainty because the written requirement may > appear larger than the actual delegation being assessed. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ------------------------------------------------------- > The objective of this proposal is to replace the fixed /23 usage-plan > reference in APNIC-127 Section 6.2.1 with wording that refers to the IPv4 > delegation being assessed. > > The proposal keeps the one-year usage-plan requirement unchanged. It also > preserves needs-based assessment, IPv4 conservation principles, and the > current IPv4 delegation limits. The proposal is intentionally narrow and > does not reopen broader IPv4 delegation, transfer, or waiting-list policy > issues. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ------------------------------------------------------- > In the RIPE NCC region, eligible LIRs may receive exactly one /24 from the > IPv4 waiting list. The issue size is explicit and fixed. > > In the ARIN region, an initial /24 may qualify automatically, while larger > requests up to /22 require a utilization plan based on the request size. > > This proposal does not claim that the same wording issue exists in other > RIRs. The issue is specific to APNIC-127, where Section 6.2.1 still refers > to a fixed /23 usage plan even though the IPv4 delegation being assessed > may be smaller, such as a /24. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > ------------------------------------------------------- > Current wording in APNIC-127 Section 6.2.1: > > “Demonstrate a detailed plan for use of at least a /23 within a year.” > > Proposed replacement wording: > > “Demonstrate a detailed plan for use of the IPv4 delegation being assessed > within one year, subject to the applicable IPv4 delegation limits in > APNIC-127.” > > This keeps the detailed usage-plan requirement and the one-year timeframe. > Only the size reference changes from a fixed /23 to the IPv4 delegation > being assessed. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ------------------------------------------------------- > Advantages: > Provides clearer policy text for new LIR applicants, APNIC, NIRs, and > reviewers. > Makes the usage-plan requirement more proportionate where the IPv4 > delegation being assessed is smaller than /23, such as a /24. > Better aligns APNIC-127 Section 6.2.1 with the current IPv4 delegation > framework. > Preserves needs-based assessment and IPv4 conservation principles. > Does not create any new IPv4 entitlement. > Has limited operational impact, as the change is mainly to policy wording > and may only require related updates to guidance, forms, and assessment > notes. > > Disadvantages: > No major disadvantages have been identified. > > Some minor procedural work may be required for APNIC and NIRs to update > applicant guidance, forms, or internal assessment notes so that they align > with the revised wording. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ------------------------------------------------------- > For APNIC and NIRs, the main impact would be updating the wording of > Section 6.2.1 and reviewing related applicant guidance, forms, and > assessment notes where needed. > > For applicants and the wider community, the proposal provides a clearer > documentation standard. Applicants would justify the IPv4 delegation being > assessed, rather than appearing to justify a fixed /23 when the delegation > may be smaller. > > The proposal does not change who can receive IPv4 space, the /24 minimum > delegation, the /23 maximum total delegation from the remaining IPv4 pool, > transfer policy, waiting-list policy, routing, RPKI, WHOIS, RDAP, or DNS > operations. > > > 7. References > ------------------------------------------------------- > APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies, APNIC-127, Sections 6.1 and > 6.2.1.?https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources > RIPE NCC IPv4 Waiting List.? > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-waiting-list/ > ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, Section 4.2.2.? > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
