The APNIC community will consider seven policy proposals at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) during APNIC 62, to be held in Mumbai, India, from 4 to 10 September 2026. The OPM is scheduled for 10 September.
What are APNIC and its Policy Development Process?
APNIC is the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region. It delegates and registers Internet number resources including IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) and provides related services to organisations across the region.
The policies governing the distribution and registration of these resources are developed through APNIC’s open, bottom-up Policy Development Process (PDP). Anyone may propose a policy change, they do not need to be an APNIC Member. Anyone may also join the Policy SIG mailing list, comment on a proposal, and participate in an OPM either in person or remotely.
Proposals are discussed first on the mailing list and then at the OPM. The Policy SIG Chairs assess whether the community has reached rough consensus by considering the discussion and whether objections have been adequately addressed. This is not a majority vote. If a proposal reaches consensus at the OPM, it proceeds to a final comment period. If consensus is maintained, the APNIC Executive Council endorses the proposal before the Secretariat implements it.
APNIC 62 policy proposals
The proposals scheduled for discussion address IPv4 scarcity and transition, IPv6 allocation sizes, and the management of network abuse contacts. For the At-Large community, the most important proposals being discussed are prop-171 and prop-172 as they are dealing with network or resource abuse identification and accountability. The details of each proposal, provided below, are based on the information available in the proposal itself, and not an opinion on each proposal.
prop-169: Aligning IPv4 LIR Needs Assessment with Current IPv4 Delegation Policy
APNIC policy currently refers to an applicant demonstrating how it will use at least a /23[*] of IPv4 address space within one year. However, the size of the delegation being assessed may differ under current policy. Prop-169 proposes replacing the fixed /23 reference with wording tied to the actual IPv4 delegation under assessment. Its purpose is to make the needs-assessment language consistent with current delegation practice; it does not propose a new assessment method
[*] Note: The number after the slash shows the size of an address block: for IPv4, a /22 contains 1,024 addresses, a /23 contains 512 and a /24 contains 256, so a higher slash number means a smaller block. IPv6 uses the same notation but has a vastly larger address space.
prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations
Current policy generally permits a maximum IPv4 delegation of /23. Prop-168 would allow eligible account holders with less than an aggregate /22 to request additional space up to a combined maximum of /22. Account holders that have transferred IPv4 space out of their accounts would not be eligible, and the proposal includes a five-year restriction on transferring delegated IPv4 resources from the date of the most recent delegation.
The proposal also seeks to reserve a /12 from APNIC’s remaining IPv4 pool for IPv4-to-IPv6 transition after the general pool is exhausted. It is intended to address the limited amount of IPv4 space available to smaller resource holders while retaining a dedicated pool for future transition requirements.
prop-165: Provision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional Purpose
Prop-165 would allow an organisation holding an IPv6 Provider Aggregatable allocation to receive one IPv4 /24 for operating an IPv6-only network that still needs limited IPv4 functionality during transition. Examples include supporting DNS resolution and other translation mechanisms. The IPv4 block could not be permanently reassigned to another organisation.
The proposal includes conditions for suspending new delegations as the remaining IPv4 pool approaches exhaustion. It is intended to support organisations deploying IPv6-only infrastructure that still require a small amount of IPv4 space for interoperability with the IPv4 Internet.
prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
This proposal seeks to allow initial IPv6 allocations smaller than the current /32 minimum and to align allocation sizes on four-bit, or “nibble”, boundaries. Nibble-aligned prefixes such as /36 and /40 make IPv6 addressing plans and reverse DNS delegation easier to manage because each hexadecimal digit represents four bits.
The proposal is intended to let organisations receive an allocation better matched to their demonstrated need, rather than requiring every qualifying applicant to receive at least a /32. It also includes provisions concerning sparse allocation, space reserved for future growth, and the possible return and resizing of some existing allocations. The published objective refers to reducing the minimum to /36, while APNIC’s assessment of the current proposal text describes a /40 minimum; this point remains to be clarified during the policy discussion.
prop-170: Nibble-Boundary Alignment for IPv6 Allocations
Prop-170 addresses nibble alignment without changing the current /32 minimum IPv6 allocation. Where an applicant requests nibble alignment and APNIC validates the need under the existing needs-based assessment, the allocation could be made on an appropriate four-bit boundary.
The proposal applies to IPv6 allocations made to Local Internet Registries, not IPv6 assignments. It would not generally require existing resource holders to renumber, return or resize their allocations. Its purpose is to make allocation boundaries easier to manage operationally while retaining the present minimum allocation and needs-based review.
prop-171: Operational Accountability for Abuse Contacts in Sub-Allocated Address Space
APNIC resource holders may sub-allocate or assign address space to downstream organisations. Prop-171 would require the upstream holder to ensure that a reliable operational path exists between the abuse contact registered for the address space and the downstream party responsible for handling abuse reports.
The proposal does not prescribe one model for organising abuse handling or require all downstream contact details to be publicly disclosed. It also does not change the existing contact-validation requirement or introduce a new audit or compliance mechanism. Its aim is to ensure that a registered abuse contact can connect a report to the party able to act on it, rather than being only a technically reachable mailbox.
prop-172: Defining Internet Abuse through IP Addresses
APNIC policy requires resource holders to monitor and respond to reports sent to their registered abuse contacts, but it does not contain an agreed definition of “Internet abuse through IP addresses”. Prop-172 proposes adding such a definition to APNIC policy.
The proposed definition would identify categories of conduct regarded as IP address abuse, describe how that conduct is determined in the first instance, and clarify APNIC’s role. The stated purpose is to create a common foundation for possible future policy discussions about resource-holder responsibilities. The proposal says it would not itself create a new reporting requirement, obligation or compliance mechanism.
How to participate
Anyone interested in Internet number resource policy can participate in the APNIC process. Community members can read the full proposals, join the Policy SIG mailing list, attend the OPM in Mumbai or participate remotely. Comments made on the mailing list and during the meeting contribute to the Chairs’ assessment of consensus.
Further information is available on the APNIC 62 OPM participation page.
Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.