Summary

  • Anne Lord presented APNIC's 2002 plan to let an LIR make an IPv4 sub-allocation to a downstream ISP, which could then assign addresses to its own customers.
  • The block remained non-portable, had to be registered, and could not be sub-allocated a second time. APNIC's second-opinion process still examined allocations above the LIR's assignment window.

The awkward discovery in APNIC's August 2002 proposal was that the network had already outrun the rulebook. LIRs could make assignments to customers, but a downstream ISP needed addresses it could assign again. Some upstream providers were already handing out blocks that way. APNIC's Whois upgrade made the status field mandatory, so an informal sub-allocation now needed an honest name in the database. Policy caught up because the form stopped accepting a wink.

Lord presented the fix at APNIC 14. An LIR could allocate IPv4 to its ISP customer. The new ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE status recorded the arrangement. The customer could assign addresses onward, but could not make another sub-allocation. If it stopped buying service from that LIR, the block returned to the LIR. The rule handed an ISP operating authority while leaving the address tenure attached to its supplier.

The room did not treat that bargain as free. Participants asked whether delegated allocations would invite abuse, alter fees or become recursive. The answer in the minutes was a narrow permission: one level only, all allocations and assignments registered, the LIR responsible for aggregation, and a second opinion from APNIC when a proposed allocation exceeded the LIR's assignment window. A downstream ISP seeking portable space still had to approach APNIC or its NIR. The proposal's 80% usage rule governed an LIR's later request for more space; it was no blank cheque for every customer block.

The chair found consensus with very few objections. The member meeting backed the SIG recommendation and the supporting size guidance. APNIC's 2002 annual report describes the change as formal recognition of a practice that already existed. An APNIC status presentation dates implementation to 1 December 2002. Lord carried the proposal into the room; APNIC authored it, members approved it and the Secretariat implemented it.

The policy's cleverness was its asymmetry. Downstream ISPs could serve customers without pretending every assignment came directly from the upstream. The upstream kept the lever that mattered when a commercial relationship ended. A Whois status turned that dependency into a record. APNIC's documents show the rule and its approval; they do not count how many customer blocks later changed hands cleanly. A dated sample of return and reassignment records would show how that exit worked in practice.