The APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting (OPM) will feature a busy agenda of policy proposals. This update provides a simple overview of each proposal, what it aims to change, and the key points the community may wish to consider.
The proposals for APNIC 62 cover a wide range of topics. Some focus on IPv6 allocation sizes and address planning. Others examine how APNIC’s remaining IPv4 pool should be managed. There are also proposals dealing with abuse contacts and the definition of Internet abuse involving IP addresses.
So, a little bit of everything. Just enough policy spice to keep the OPM interesting.
As always, this article does not take a position for or against any proposal. Its purpose is to help the community understand what is on the table before discussion begins.
prop-164-v005: Allocations of IPv6 resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
prop-164 reviews the minimum size of IPv6 allocations. Today, the minimum IPv6 allocation is a /32. The proposal would reduce that minimum to a /40. It would also require allocations to align on nibble boundaries, meaning prefix lengths would fall on four-bit increments such as /32, /36, or /40.
The main issue the proposal seeks to address is that some Members may not need a full /32 but still require enough structure to support proper sub-delegation records in Whois and the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). In simple terms, it aims to make IPv6 allocation sizes more flexible while maintaining clean registry records.
The proposal also includes a mechanism for existing holders of larger IPv6 allocations to return unused space and reduce their allocation to a /40. In addition, it introduces a sparse allocation approach, under which APNIC would reserve nearby space to support future growth.
Key take-away: prop-164 would allow smaller IPv6 allocations where appropriate, while considering future growth and registry accuracy.
prop-165-v003: Provision of IPv4 address space to IPv6-only networks for transitional purposes
prop-165 is aimed at organizations deploying IPv6-only networks that still require a small amount of IPv4 space for transition purposes. It would allow organizations that qualify for an initial IPv6 allocation to request one IPv4 /24. The proposal outlines several potential uses for this IPv4 space, including DNS resolvers, mail gateways, monitoring systems, and access to legacy IPv4-only services.
The IPv4 space would come from the final /8 pool. It would count towards an organization’s existing IPv4 entitlement and would not increase the total amount of IPv4 space it could hold under current policy.
The proposal also includes several conditions. The /24 could not be transferred or leased, and it would need to be returned if it was no longer required for the IPv6-only deployment.
Key take-away: prop-165 would provide IPv6-only networks with a small amount of IPv4 space when needed for transition purposes.
prop-168-v003: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations
prop-168 examines the maximum amount of IPv4 address space an account holder may receive from APNIC’s available pool. It would allow account holders with less than an aggregated /22 to apply for additional IPv4 space, up to a total maximum holding of a /22.
The proposal is based on the view that APNIC still has IPv4 space available and that, under current policy, some of that space may remain unused for several years.
It also proposes changes to transfer rules. If an account holder receives a new IPv4 delegation from APNIC, the five-year transfer restriction would apply from the date of the most recent delegation. Account holders that have transferred IPv4 space out of their account would no longer be eligible for additional IPv4 delegations from APNIC.
The proposal also seeks to reserve a /12 IPv4 pool for IPv4-to-IPv6 transition purposes after the general available pool has been exhausted. New account holders could receive up to a /24 from that reserved pool, subject to the proposal’s conditions.
Key take-away: prop-168 would increase access to remaining IPv4 space, modify transfer restrictions, and reserve address space for future transition needs.
prop-169: Aligning IPv4 LIR needs assessment with current IPv4 delegation policy
prop-169 is one of the more straightforward proposals. It updates wording in APNIC-127, Section 6.2.1. The current text states that a Local Internet Registry (LIR) must show a detailed plan to use at least a /23 within one year. The proposal would instead refer to the IPv4 delegation being assessed.
If the delegation under assessment is a /24, requiring a usage plan for a /23 can appear confusing. The proposal retains the one-year planning requirement while aligning the wording with the size of the delegation being requested.
The proposal does not alter IPv4 delegation limits, transfer policy, waiting-list policy, routing, Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), whois, RDAP, or DNS operations.
Key take-away: prop-169 is a wording update designed to make IPv4 needs-assessment language clearer.
prop-170-v001: Nibble-boundary alignment for IPv6 allocations
prop-170 also addresses nibble-boundary alignment, but it differs from prop-164. It does not reduce the minimum IPv6 allocation size from /32. Instead, it introduces a conditional process that would allow IPv6 allocations to align with nibble boundaries when justified through the existing needs-based assessment process.
A nibble boundary is a prefix length divisible by four, such as a /20, /24, /28, or /32. These boundaries can make IPv6 blocks easier to read, document, subdivide, automate, and audit. Anyone who has spent time staring at IPv6 addressing plans will appreciate the appeal of cleaner boundaries.
The proposal retains the existing needs-based assessment framework. It does not create an automatic entitlement to larger allocations, nor does it require existing resource holders to renumber, return, or resize current IPv6 allocations.
Key take-away: prop-170 would allow justified IPv6 allocations to be rounded to nibble boundaries while retaining the existing assessment framework.
prop-171-v001: Operational accountability for abuse contacts in sub-allocated address space
prop-171 focuses on abuse contacts for address space that has been sub-allocated, assigned, or otherwise used by a downstream organization. It proposes that the upstream resource holder should ensure there is a reliable path between the registered abuse contact and the party that can investigate and resolve reports.
The key distinction is between a contact that is reachable and one that is operationally effective. A mailbox may function correctly, but if reports do not reach the people who can act on them, the process may still fail.
The proposal does not change existing Incident Response Team (IRT) validation requirements, validation frequency, or Whois schema. It also does not prescribe a single model for handling abuse reports. An upstream provider could operate a central abuse desk, a downstream organization could manage the contact directly, or another effective arrangement could be used.
Key take-away: prop-171 aims to ensure that abuse reports reach people who can take action.
prop-172-v001: Defining Internet abuse through IP addresses
prop-172 introduces a formal definition of ‘Internet abuse through IP addresses’ into APNIC policy. It does not create new enforcement powers, reporting requirements, or compliance processes.
The proposed definition includes activities such as malware hosting, botnet command-and-control infrastructure, Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) activity, routing-layer abuse, fraudulent resource activity, phishing, fraud, scams, and impersonation infrastructure. It states that APNIC would not determine whether a specific case constitutes abuse. That responsibility would remain with the resource holder, provided they have been notified and have the practical ability to act.
The proposal also makes clear that good-faith operational mistakes that are identified and corrected promptly would not be considered abuse.
Key take-away: prop-172 seeks to establish a shared definition of IP address abuse without introducing new enforcement mechanisms.
Common themes
Several common themes emerge across the APNIC 62 proposals.
The first is IPv4 management. Some proposals focus on how APNIC’s remaining IPv4 space should be delegated, while others address clearer wording or support for IPv6 transition.
The second is IPv6 planning. Two proposals examine allocation sizing and nibble-boundary alignment, with the goal of making address plans easier to manage and document.
The third is abuse management. Two proposals address abuse-related policy: One focuses on contact accountability in sub-allocated space, and the other on defining Internet abuse through IP addresses.
None of these proposals should be considered in isolation from the PDP. The OPM and Policy SIG mailing list provide the forum where the community can test the wording, examine the impacts, raise concerns, and suggest improvements.
Getting involved
Policy discussions work best when people read proposals, ask questions, and contribute operational experience. As always, keep an eye on the Policy SIG mailing list and policy proposal pages for Secretariat impact assessments before the OPM.
Some of these proposals are narrowly focused. Others could have broader operational, legal, or registry implications if adopted. Either way, the APNIC 62 OPM is where the community will discuss them and determine whether they should move forward.
The Internet is built by the community. Its future should be shaped by the community too. So, bring your questions, your practical examples, and your operational experience. All contributions can help turn policy text into better policy.
The APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting (OPM) will take place on 10 September 2026 from 9:30 (UTC +5:30).
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.