APNIC 58
Policy Discussion Results

September 10, 2024

APNIC 58 was held in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington, New Zealand from August 30th to September 6th of 2024. There were initially four proposed policies but only two of the proposed policies were voted on as the other two were withdrawn.

prop-157-v003: Temporary IPv4 Transfers

Did not reach consensus.

This proposal would introduce temporary IPv4 transfers in the APNIC region as a controlled alternative to leasing, which is prohibited.  The aim is to help smaller organizations transition to IPv6 by providing temporary IPv4 space under strict guidelines, such as a /24 block size minimum, and allowing only intra-region transfers. While some support the idea, concerns have arisen about potential misuse for profit and undermining IPv6 adoption efforts. The policy has sparked debates over the community forum for its potential to encourage leasing-like practices, with many calling for adjustments to limit its scope and promote a faster shift to IPv6.

The author uploaded a new version of this policy with minute differences, so APNIC allowed for the author to present this policy to the community. This new version added on to section 11.1.3 of the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies. For a temporary transfer, the justification for the space would need to match the length of the transfer since current justification requires it for two years while temporary transfers can be shorter than that. This received significant opposition from the APNIC community. Concerns were raised about the potential legalization of leasing and the legal risks involved, especially regarding the return of resources and potential liability for APNIC. Some suggested placing limits on the number and duration of transfers and incorporating a dispute resolution process, but Jordi resisted these changes, citing previous community feedback. The community voiced strong resistance to this policy, fearing the creation of an uncontrolled leasing market. Ultimately, the community decided to drop the proposal due to the lack of consensus, though Jodi expressed intent to submit a revised version.

prop-159-v001: Reduction of Minimum IPv6 Allocation Size from /32 to /36)

Withdrawn.

This proposal would reduce the minimum IPv6 allocation size for new Local Internet Registries (LIRs) from /32 to /36, aiming to ease the financial burden on smaller LIRs. It is intended to support newer LIRs in adopting IPv6 without incurring higher fees. However, it has faced opposition, with critics suggesting that fee structure reforms, rather than smaller allocation sizes, would be a better approach. The proposal has not gained widespread support, with many community members calling for amendments to address concerns more effectively.

The author had not registered for the conference and was unable to present their proposal. APNIC had reached out via email but had not received a response, so the proposal was withdrawn.

prop-160-v001: Change IPv6 Initial Assignment to /44 for Organizations Eligible for /23 IPv4

Did not reach consensus.

This policy proposal seeks to increase the initial IPv6 allocation from /48 to /44 for organizations eligible for a /23 IPv4 block, aiming to provide greater flexibility for multihoming and multi-site deployments. Supporters argue that larger allocations would make IPv6 implementation easier, but critics believe IPv6 assignments should be based on actual need rather than IPv4 eligibility. The debate centers on whether the increased allocation is justified by technical requirements or if it risks over-allocating resources unnecessarily.

The author submitted a second version of their policy proposal on September 1st resulting in insufficient time for APNIC to complete their impact assessment on this new version and for the community to review. As a result, some participants requested more time to consider the policy. It was noted by the community that members can already apply for more than a /48, with options to request larger allocations like a /44 if needed. While some were neutral, others expressed opposition, citing concerns about splitting blocks and the difference in metrics between IPv6 and IPv4. One member agreed with the goal of encouraging IPv6 adoption but felt a /44 allocation was excessive, suggesting a /47 instead. Ultimately, there was no consensus on the proposal, with most opposing it based on both online and in-room votes. The proposal will return to the mailing list for further discussion.

prop-161-v002: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)

Withdrawn.

Originally proposing to allocate IPv6 addresses for IoT devices, including non-electronic items, this policy sparked debate over the appropriateness of IPv6 for non-networked objects. The revised version suggested using IPv6 for IoT purposes with a smaller allocation size but was still met with concerns over unnecessary complexity and over-allocation. Critics argued that existing policies already support IoT needs, and alternative identification methods like Object Identifiers (OIDs) or Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) might be more efficient. The proposal was withdrawn, but discussions on IPv6’s role in IoT are expected to continue.

Policy 161 was withdrawn prior to the conference because the authors realized that current APNIC policies already allow the use of IPv6 addresses to host information for non-electronic items on the Internet. During an informational presentation, it was explained that IPv6 is already being used by some in the IoT community to host and verify data associated with electronic and non-electronic items, with no need for policy changes. The purpose of the presentation was to share best practices rather than seek consensus, since there is no pressing need to alter the existing framework for IPv6 use in IoT applications at this time.