In an earlier APRALO Bytes post, seven Internet number resource policy proposals scheduled for discussion at APNIC 62 were outlined. The APNIC community has now considered those proposals at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM), held in Mumbai, India, on 10 September 2026.
Two proposals reached consensus, three did not reach consensus, and two were discussed without a consensus call. Reaching consensus at APNIC 62 does not by itself mean that a proposal has already been implemented. Successful proposals must complete the remaining stages of APNIC’s Policy Development Process, including the final comment period and endorsement by the APNIC Executive Council.
Proposals that reached consensus
prop-169: Aligning IPv4 LIR Needs Assessment with Current IPv4 Delegation Policy
Prop-169 proposed a narrow wording change. Current policy refers to an applicant demonstrating a plan to use at least a /23 of IPv4 space within one year, even where the delegation being assessed may be smaller. The proposal replaces that fixed reference with wording linked to the delegation actually under assessment.
The discussion confirmed that the proposal would not change the minimum or maximum IPv4 delegation, weaken the needs-based assessment, or create a new entitlement to IPv4 addresses. APNIC assessed the operational impact as limited mainly to updating the policy document, internal guidance and applicant-facing material. The proposal reached consensus.
prop-170: Nibble-Boundary Alignment for IPv6 Allocations
Prop-170 would allow an IPv6 allocation to be aligned on a four-bit, or “nibble”, boundary where an applicant requests it, provides an operational justification, and satisfies the existing needs-based assessment. It does not change the current /32 minimum allocation.
Supporters highlighted simpler address planning, reverse DNS management, automation and some operational uses such as segment routing. Questions focused on whether existing policy already permits suitable exceptions, what evidence would justify the larger nibble-aligned block, and whether alignment could result in a larger allocation or higher fees. The authors emphasised that nibble alignment would be optional rather than automatic. The proposal reached consensus.
Proposals that did not reach consensus
prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations
Prop-168 proposed allowing eligible APNIC account holders with less than an aggregate /22 of IPv4 space to request additional addresses, up to a combined maximum of /22. Account holders that had previously transferred IPv4 space out of their accounts would be ineligible. Addresses received under the proposal would also be subject to a five-year transfer restriction calculated from the most recent delegation.
A central concern was that APNIC does not hold enough IPv4 space to provide the maximum additional amount to every account holder that could potentially qualify. If many eligible account holders applied after the policy took effect, the available pool could be depleted quickly. APNIC anticipated an initial surge in applications, additional processing work and possible delays. Once the applicable pool was exhausted, a waiting list would be required, raising further questions about queue management, fairness between early and later applicants, and how requests should be prioritised when the remaining space could not satisfy them all.
The proposal attempted to protect future access by reserving a /12 from APNIC’s remaining IPv4 space for IPv4-to-IPv6 transition purposes. After the general pool was exhausted, this reserve could continue providing limited IPv4 delegations generally up to a /24 to new entrants that still needed some IPv4 connectivity while deploying IPv6. This could preserve an entry path for several more years, but the discussion identified questions about when the reserve would become available, how it would interact with existing reserved pools and whether its eligibility rules were sufficiently clear.
Participants also discussed whether the additional demand had been adequately demonstrated, whether increasing the maximum delegation would accelerate exhaustion for limited practical benefit, how transferred address space should count towards eligibility, and whether the five-year transfer restriction was appropriate. APNIC identified substantial registry-system changes and several provisions requiring clarification. The proposal did not reach consensus and returned to the Policy SIG mailing list.
prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
Version 6 of prop-164 clarified that the proposal would reduce the minimum IPv6 allocation from /32 to /40, with allocations made on nibble boundaries. It also proposed provisions for sparse allocation, space reserved for future growth, and the expansion or resizing of allocations.
Discussion focused on whether smaller allocations were operationally necessary, the distinction between allocations and assignments, the value of more precise registration records, how much address space APNIC would reserve around each allocation, and the possible effect on APNIC fees. The Chairs initially determined that consensus had not been reached. After questions about the treatment of objections, a second consensus call was held, but the outcome remained the same. The proposal returned to the mailing list for further discussion.
prop-171: Operational Accountability for Abuse Contacts in Sub-Allocated Address Space
Prop-171 sought to require an upstream resource holder to maintain a reliable operational path between the registered abuse contact and the downstream party able to investigate and act on an abuse report.
The discussion explored whether existing IRT policy already addresses part of the problem, who should maintain and validate downstream contact information, how the requirement would apply across different sizes of sub-allocation, and whether the wording could imply an enforcement role despite the proposal stating that APNIC would not police abuse. APNIC said that several points would need clarification before an implementation process and timeframe could be determined. The proposal did not reach consensus and returned to the mailing list.
Proposals discussed without a consensus call
These proposals were submitted after the deadline (4 weeks before the Policy SIG meetings) which is why they were not put up for consensus determination.
prop-165: Provision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional Purpose
Prop-165 proposed allowing an organisation with an IPv6 Provider Aggregatable allocation to receive one IPv4 /24 to support an IPv6-only network’s remaining transition needs.
Version 4 was submitted shortly before the OPM and included a declaration-based approach and revised sunset provisions. Participants discussed the value of supporting IPv6-only deployments, how eligibility and genuine transitional use could be verified, the risk of the mechanism being misused, the limited evidence of demand, and whether the sunset conditions should be written directly into policy. Because APNIC’s impact assessment covered the earlier version and the revised text needed more review, the proposal was presented for discussion only. No consensus call was held, and it returned to the mailing list.
prop-172: Defining Internet Abuse through IP Addresses
Prop-172 proposed adding a definition of “Internet abuse through IP addresses” to APNIC policy as a foundation for possible future work.
The discussion showed that defining abuse raises broader questions about APNIC’s role and authority, the level of technical evidence needed, the difference between observing harmful activity from an address and determining responsibility, and the fact that an IP address may be shared, dynamically allocated or used by a compromised device. Participants also discussed whether changing examples and operational details would be better handled through a working group or best-practice document rather than fixed policy text. The proposal was discussion-only, no consensus call was held, and further work will continue on the mailing list.
What happens next?
Prop-169 and prop-170 move through the remaining stages of the APNIC Policy Development Process. The other five proposals remain open for further community discussion and may be revised, resubmitted or withdrawn by their authors.
The outcome demonstrates that an APNIC OPM is not simply a vote on whether an idea is supported. The community also tests whether the problem is sufficiently clear, whether the proposed wording is implementable, and whether concerns and possible unintended consequences have been adequately addressed.
Anyone can participate in the next stage of these discussions by joining the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list and reviewing the APNIC 62 meeting report, the proposal pages and the published OPM transcripts.
Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.