APNIC 62 policy proposals target IPv4, IPv6 and abuse

APNIC’s Open Policy Meeting (OPM) in September will consider seven policy proposals that could reshape how the registry allocates IPv4 and IPv6 space and handles abuse reports. The drafts cover allocation flexibility, transition support, transfer rules and operational accountability for abuse contacts. None have been adopted yet; community discussion at the meeting will determine whether they move forward in the Policy Development Process (PDP).

What’s on the table

Two proposals focus on IPv6 allocation practices. prop-164 would reduce the minimum IPv6 allocation from a /32 to a /40 and require all allocations to align on nibble boundaries—prefix lengths divisible by four, such as /32, /36 or /40. The change aims to give members more flexibility while keeping registry records clean. Existing holders could return unused space to shrink their allocation to a /40. prop-170 takes a narrower approach: it would allow IPv6 allocations to align on nibble boundaries only when justified through the existing needs-based assessment, without reducing the minimum allocation size.

Three proposals address IPv4 management. prop-165 would let organizations deploying IPv6-only networks request a single IPv4 /24 from APNIC’s final /8 pool for transitional purposes, such as DNS resolvers or mail gateways. The space could not be transferred or leased and would need to be returned if no longer needed. prop-168 would raise the maximum IPv4 delegation for account holders with less than an aggregated /22, allowing them to apply for additional space up to that limit. It also proposes a five-year transfer restriction from the date of the most recent delegation and would reserve a /12 IPv4 pool for future IPv4-to-IPv6 transition needs. prop-169 is a wording update to clarify that IPv4 needs assessments should align with the size of the delegation being requested, rather than always requiring a plan for a /23.

The remaining two proposals deal with abuse handling. prop-171 would require upstream resource holders to ensure abuse contacts for sub-allocated address space are operationally effective—not just reachable. The proposal does not prescribe a specific model, allowing providers to use central abuse desks or delegate contact management to downstream organizations. prop-172 would introduce a formal definition of ‘Internet abuse through IP addresses’ into APNIC policy, covering activities like malware hosting, botnet command-and-control, DDoS, routing-layer abuse, phishing and fraud. The definition would not create new enforcement powers or reporting requirements; responsibility for determining whether a specific case constitutes abuse would remain with the resource holder.

Why the proposals matter

The proposals reflect ongoing tensions in address management. IPv4 space is dwindling, but demand persists for transitional support and clearer delegation rules. IPv6 adoption continues to grow, yet operational challenges remain around allocation sizes and documentation. Abuse handling, meanwhile, remains a persistent concern, with calls for clearer definitions and more effective contact mechanisms.

If adopted, the changes could have practical implications for network operators. Smaller IPv6 allocations and nibble-boundary alignment could simplify address planning and documentation. The IPv4 proposals could make it easier for organizations to obtain space for transitional needs, while the abuse-related proposals could improve the effectiveness of abuse reporting processes. However, the proposals also introduce new conditions and restrictions, such as transfer rules and return requirements, which operators would need to navigate.

What to watch

The APNIC 62 OPM will take place on 10 September 2026. The community will discuss the proposals, raise concerns and suggest improvements before deciding whether they should advance in the PDP. Secretariat impact assessments will be published ahead of the meeting, providing further clarity on the operational, legal and registry implications of each proposal. Operators can participate in the discussion via the Policy SIG mailing list or at the meeting itself.