Summary

  • APNIC lists prop-169 for discussion at the APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting; it has not been adopted or implemented.
  • The proposal would test an LIR's detailed one-year usage plan against the IPv4 delegation under assessment instead of a fixed /23.
  • It expressly leaves eligibility, the /24 minimum, the remaining-pool /23 total limit and other IPv4 policies unchanged.

An applicant seeking a /24 can encounter a written test that appears to demand a plan for at least a /23. That is not merely an untidy sentence. It changes the apparent denominator of the evidence: the applicant may seem required to justify twice the address space that is actually being assessed.

APNIC's prop-169 targets that mismatch. Version 1 was posted to the Policy SIG mailing list on 13 July 2026. APNIC published a Secretariat impact assessment on 18 August and currently lists the proposal for discussion at the APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting. Discussion is not consensus, adoption or implementation.

A variable request needs a matching test

Section 6.2.1 of APNIC-127 currently refers to a detailed plan for using at least a /23 within one year. Prop-169 would instead require a plan for using “the IPv4 delegation being assessed” within one year, subject to the applicable limits.

The one-year horizon remains. So do needs-based assessment and conservation. The draft says it does not alter who can receive IPv4 space, the /24 minimum delegation, the /23 maximum total delegation from the remaining pool, transfers, the waiting list, routing, RPKI, WHOIS, RDAP or DNS operations.

That boundary is the proposal's central virtue. It does not manufacture supply or entitlement. The supported inference is that it aligns the proof requested with the delegation under assessment.

Administrative clarity is still a control change

The Secretariat reports no registry or addressing-system impact and no material legal issue. It expects updates to assessment notes, guidance and applicant-facing material. If consensus is reached, APNIC estimates about three months for implementation, subject to editorial comments.

Calling the change editorial should not make its operating effect invisible. Application forms and reviewer guidance determine what evidence applicants assemble, how NIRs explain the test and whether comparable requests receive comparable scrutiny. A fixed denominator that no longer matches every request invites workaround, over-documentation or inconsistent interpretation.

There is no published measurement of how often the mismatch changes processing time or outcomes. The proposal therefore supports a claim about clarity, not a claim about quantified savings.

Sources