Well, that was a busy few hours, packed with lively discussion and strong opinions. The APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting (OPM) had something for everyone, with policy proposals tackling IPv4 exhaustion, IPv6 usability, and IP abuse. Let’s dive in, look at what happened, and explore what comes next.
The Policy SIG considered seven policy proposals across OPM 1 and OPM 2. Two proposals achieved consensus and will progress through the APNIC Policy Development Process (PDP). Three were returned to the mailing list for further discussion, while two remained under discussion without a consensus call.
Prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
Prop-164 proposed allowing APNIC to make IPv6 allocations smaller than the current minimum /32, down to a /40, while maintaining nibble-boundary alignment.
Supporters argued that the proposal would better match allocations to operational requirements, reduce over-allocation, and enable more accurate registration of delegated resources. Discussion centred on three issues: Whether the proposal addressed a sufficiently widespread operational need, how it would affect APNIC processes and systems, and whether different allocation sizes could influence Member decision-making.
Despite significant support, concerns remained unresolved. The Chairs determined that consensus had not been achieved and returned the proposal to the mailing list for further discussion.
Outcome: No consensus, returned to the mailing list.
Prop-165: Provision of IPv4 address space to IPv6-only networks for transitional purpose
Prop-165 proposed allowing IPv6-only networks to receive a limited amount of IPv4 address space to support transitional services and operational requirements. Under the proposal, organizations eligible for an IPv6 allocation could request a single IPv4 /24 for functions such as DNS resolvers, mail gateways, monitoring systems, logging infrastructure, and access to legacy IPv4-only services.
Supporters argued that the proposal would remove practical barriers to deploying IPv6-only networks while maintaining IPv4 conservation. Discussion focused on several implementation questions, including how requests would be validated, how address usage would be monitored, and whether delegated addresses would remain dedicated to transitional purposes over time.
As a revised version of the proposal had been submitted shortly before the meeting, and additional review was required, the Policy SIG Chairs did not make a consensus call.
Outcome: No consensus call.
Prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations
Prop-168 proposed increasing the maximum amount of IPv4 address space available from APNIC’s remaining IPv4 pool from a /23 to a /22. The proposal also included creating a reserved pool to support new entrants deploying IPv6 transition technologies such as NAT64 and DNS64.
Proponents argued that smaller and growing operators continue to have legitimate requirements for additional IPv4 resources, and that increasing the maximum delegation would reduce reliance on transfers and leasing arrangements.
Others raised concerns that larger delegations could shorten the lifespan of APNIC’s remaining IPv4 pool. Discussion focused on whether the proposal appropriately balanced operational requirements with long-term IPv4 conservation goals. Following discussion, the Chairs concluded that consensus had not been reached and returned the proposal to the mailing list for further development.
Outcome: No consensus, returned to the mailing list.
Prop-169: Aligning IPv4 LIR needs assessment with current IPv4 delegation policy
Prop-169 sought to update policy language to better align IPv4 needs assessments with APNIC’s current delegation practices.
The proposal addressed a discrepancy between existing policy text, which refers to justification for a /23, and current practices, which allow assessment of smaller delegations. Supporters said the change would improve clarity and align policy wording with existing operational processes without changing allocation principles or eligibility requirements.
The proposal received broad support from participants, and the Chairs determined that consensus had been reached.
Outcome: Consensus reached.
Prop-170: Nibble-boundary alignment for IPv6 allocations
Prop-170 proposed introducing an optional mechanism that would allow applicants to request IPv6 allocations aligned to nibble boundaries when they can demonstrate a valid operational need.
Supporters highlighted operational benefits, including improved reverse DNS management, network planning, automation, route aggregation, troubleshooting, and support for future network expansion. The proposal would not change minimum allocation sizes or APNIC’s needs-based assessment model. Instead, it would provide applicants with an additional option when operationally justified.
While some participants questioned whether existing policies already provided sufficient flexibility, the broader discussion indicated strong support for the proposal’s operational benefits. The Chairs concluded that consensus had been achieved.
Outcome: Consensus reached.
Prop-171: Operational accountability for abuse contacts in sub-allocated address space
Prop-171 sought to improve the effectiveness of abuse reporting by ensuring that registered abuse contacts ultimately connect reports to the organization capable of investigating and addressing them.
The proposal arose from concerns that abuse reports can sometimes reach upstream resource holders without being effectively relayed to downstream operators responsible for the relevant networks. Rather than mandating a specific implementation approach, the proposal focused on ensuring a functional operational path for abuse reports.
Discussion examined responsibilities for maintaining abuse contacts, validation requirements, operational overhead, and implementation complexity. While many participants supported the objective of improving abuse handling, differing views remained on how this should be achieved through policy.
The proposal did not reach consensus and was returned to the mailing list for further refinement.
Outcome: No consensus, returned to the mailing list.
Prop-172: Defining Internet abuse through IP addresses
Prop-172 initiated discussion on whether APNIC should adopt a formal definition of Internet abuse in relation to Internet number resources.
The proposal aimed to establish a common understanding of abuse involving IP address resources and the responsibilities of resource holders. Discussion covered several issues, including technical evidence requirements, jurisdictional differences, the appropriate scope of policy, and the role of a Regional Internet Registry in addressing abuse-related matters.
Participants expressed interest in continuing the discussion, but views differed on both the definition itself and the appropriate scope of APNIC policy. Given the exploratory nature of the discussion, the Chairs did not make a consensus call.
Outcome: No consensus call.
Looking ahead
The discussions at APNIC 62 reflected ongoing community efforts to balance operational requirements, resource conservation, and accountability as Internet infrastructure continues to evolve.
Two proposals, prop-169 and prop-170, achieved consensus and will progress through the APNIC PDP. Three proposals, prop-168, prop-164, and prop-171, were returned to the mailing list for further discussion.
Two proposals, prop-165 and prop-172, remained under discussion without a consensus call and will continue to be considered by the community. These discussions are expected to continue on the Policy SIG mailing list ahead of APRICOT 2027 / APNIC 63.
Don’t just follow policy developments, help address them. Join the discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list, become a proposal author and submit a policy proposal of your own. Today’s discussion topic could be tomorrow’s policy change.
Watch the APNIC 62 OPMs 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.