Summary

  • APNIC’s current rule fixes the initial IPv6 PI assignment at /48; a larger request is handled under the subsequent-assignment process.
  • Prop-175 would let applicants demonstrate a larger initial need before deployment, using the existing assessment criteria and applying routing safeguards to the proposed first block.

The first application gets a /48. The second application gets the questions. Prop-175 asks why APNIC should make an applicant perform that little administrative two-step when the network plan already shows, before the first address is assigned, that one /48 will not fit.

The proposal is a precise amendment to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre’s rules for portable IPv6 Provider Independent assignments. Its status on APNIC’s proposal page is “Published to Mailing List”; version 1 was posted for Policy SIG discussion on 19 August 2026. It is a proposal, not a new allocation rule.

Today, APNIC-127 says an eligible applicant’s initial IPv6 PI assignment is /48. If the applicant’s requirement exceeds /48, section 9.1.4.2 sends the larger request to the subsequent-assignment process under APNIC-114 section 9.2. That process already asks whether the address plan shows need beyond /48, whether it calls for multiple discrete networks, how the previous assignment was used, and how the next block will be managed to limit global routing-table growth.

That framework makes sense when a network’s need emerges after its first assignment. The awkward case is different: an applicant arrives with the whole plan in hand. It can show the separate networks it intends to build, the address space each requires, and how it will aggregate routes. The current sequence still starts with /48, requires deployment, then asks the applicant to return with much of the same plan for another evaluation.

The sequence turns timing into a policy distinction. A documented need found before the first assignment enters one queue; the same need documented after it enters another. Prop-175’s argument is that the date the applicant learned the requirement should not determine whether APNIC can assess it.

The proposal would replace the fixed-size wording in APNIC-127 section 9.1.4.1 with a minimum: /48 remains the initial floor. Where an applicant demonstrates a requirement above /48 at the initial request, APNIC would evaluate the request under the existing needs-based criteria in APNIC-114 section 9.2. If the need is justified, APNIC could approve a larger initial assignment. Its size would follow the demonstrated requirement and the established principles of conservation, fairness, aggregation and limiting routing-table growth.

That is not a new eligibility category or a blank cheque for a bigger block. The proposal retains the existing PI requirements, including using and announcing the address space for its intended purpose. APNIC may monitor use, and the current guidance makes an unused or unannounced PI assignment subject to reclamation after the twelve-month period. The normal /48 remains available to applicants whose plans fit it.

There is one necessary edit to the existing test. A first-time applicant has no previous assignment to prove it used. Prop-175 would remove that one prior-use requirement for an initial request. In exchange, it would apply the route-management test to the block being requested: show that the proposed assignment can be managed to minimize global announcements, maximize aggregation and limit growth in the IPv6 routing table. The other section 9.2 criteria stay in place.

The most concrete gain is fewer repeat evaluations of an unchanged plan. The applicant brings its network map once; APNIC’s Hostmasters assess the larger request once. A single appropriately sized assignment can also avoid issuing a second block that might have been unnecessary had the first award reflected the documented design. Prop-175 says this can support aggregation; the text offers a policy rationale, not measured evidence that route counts will fall.

The price is front-loaded scrutiny. A request above /48 would need enough detail at the outset to justify its size. APNIC says its Hostmasters may need to perform a more detailed initial evaluation. The proposal shifts work earlier and removes a procedural return trip; it does not promise a quicker decision or a lighter evidentiary burden.

That is the real argument: when a need is already documented, should a resource policy reward the applicant for waiting until after deployment to mention it? Prop-175 says no. It would make the first decision capable of matching an established operational plan, while preserving the same conservation and routing discipline applied later.

The result rests on implementation details as much as on the policy sentence. APNIC would need to align its request form, Hostmaster guidance and public documentation with the amended policy, as the proposal itself notes. If the form cannot capture a network plan for multiple discrete networks, the rule will exist on paper while the applicant still gets the /48 first and the sequel later. The current status remains mailing-list discussion; the available record does not establish a consensus decision or implementation date.

Sources: APNIC prop-175 v001; proposal record and status; current APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies; APNIC IPv6 allocation and assignment guidelines.