The APNIC Open Policy Meeting (OPM) held during the Policy Special Interest Group (Policy SIG) session at APNIC 61 in Jakarta brought together the Asia Pacific Internet community to discuss Internet number resource management and explore how policies can support both small and large network operators. The session was chaired by Bikram Shrestha, with Co-Chairs Shaila Sharmin and Ching-Heng Ku, and had secretariat support from APNIC Policy Manager and Senior Network Analyst Dave Phelan.
APNIC policies are created through a bottom-up, transparent, and inclusive process. Discussions are recorded and considered through mailing lists and formal meetings, and new Members are invited to subscribe to the mailing list to follow proposals and engage in the conversation.
prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
One of the main topics was prop-164, put forward by Christopher Hawker and Luke Thompson, which suggested reducing the minimum IPv6 allocation from a /32 to a /36. The authors noted that the idea was to help smaller operators and businesses request address blocks that matched their operational needs, avoiding unnecessary over-allocation that can lead to inaccurate whois records.
During the discussion, one commenter shared his perspective on the long-term implications of starting with smaller allocations. He described a European organization that adopted IPv6 in 2009 with /36, /40, and /44 prefixes. By 2022, the network had grown to millions of users, and the fragmented allocations made hierarchical subnetting and routing aggregation challenging. His experience highlighted that while /36 allocations are perfectly routable and sufficient for smaller operators, larger networks benefit from starting with a /32 to maintain long-term flexibility and simplify internal network planning.
Other commenters raised concerns about a potential ‘scarcity mindset’, warning that smaller allocations could encourage inefficient subnetting in large, multinational networks. Others argued that starting with a /32 allows medium-to-large operators to aggregate routes efficiently and maintain a clean, hierarchical network structure.
Despite these concerns, small operators welcomed the proposal, noting that /36 allocations would give them more control and operational efficiency without restricting larger allocations for organizations that can justify /32 or larger blocks.
No consensus call was held during the session, but the discussion underscored the tension between efficiency for smaller operators and best practices for large networks. Discussion continues on the mailing list, allowing the community to weigh in further.
prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations
Prop-168 is an effort to increase the maximum IPv4 delegation for account holders to a /22. Put forward by Christopher Hawker, who suggests it would reduce challenges for smaller operators who rely on IPv4 while transitioning to IPv6. The policy would allow account holders with less than an aggregated /22 to request additional space up to a /22, with a five-year transfer lock to prevent exploitation. Additionally, a /12 pool would be reserved specifically for new Members to support IPv4-to-IPv6 transition technologies, allocated in /24 blocks.
The discussion revealed that a balance needs to be found between making IPv4 available for newcomers and encouraging IPv6 adoption. Some participants warned that expanding IPv4 delegations could slow IPv6 uptake by encouraging operators to remain dependent on IPv4. Others emphasized that in many emerging Asia Pacific economies, access to IPv4 remains essential for starting a new network business. As one commenter noted, even with a push toward IPv6, dual-stack networks remain a practical necessity in today’s Internet environment.
While the policy aims to provide relief for smaller operators, questions arose about operational nuances, such as mergers, acquisitions, and how the five-year transfer restriction would apply in complex cases. Consensus was not reached at APNIC 61, and the proposal was returned to the mailing list for further refinement.
Policy 101: Learning the process
Alongside the SIG, APNIC 61 also featured Policy 101, a session designed to introduce participants to the Policy Development Process (PDP). This interactive session gave attendees a clear introduction to Internet number resource policies, why they matter, and how they impact the global Internet community. Participants were able to take part in a simulated OPM, experiencing how proposals are discussed, refined, and agreed upon.
The session encouraged newcomers and interested participants to get involved, showing how they could contribute and make their voices heard in policy discussions. For anyone curious about the inner workings of the APNIC PDP, Policy 101 provided a practical pathway into understanding how decisions are made and who shapes them.
Watch the Policy 101 session in full:
Takeaways from APNIC 61
The APNIC 61 SIG session highlighted the ongoing challenges in balancing operational efficiency, accurate resource management, and long-term network planning. Prop-164 illustrated the need to support smaller operators while maintaining routing aggregation best practices for larger networks. Prop-168 demonstrated the tension between IPv4 availability and the community’s push toward IPv6 adoption.
Real-world experience and audience insights reminded participants that network growth and address allocation strategies must be planned with both short-term operational needs and long-term scalability in mind. The discussions reinforced APNIC’s commitment to a bottom-up, inclusive policy process, ensuring that the voices of both new and experienced Members continue to shape the Asia Pacific Internet landscape.
Watch the APNIC 61 SIG session in full:
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.