Summary

  • Prop-175 would keep /48 as the minimum initial IPv6 PI assignment while allowing a larger block when an eligible applicant demonstrates the requirement at the first request.
  • It would reuse APNIC's existing subsequent-assignment criteria, except that an initial applicant could not be required to show use of a previous PI assignment.
  • The proposal was published to the Policy SIG mailing list on 19 August 2026 and had no displayed Secretariat impact assessment at the reporting freeze; it was not adopted or implemented.

The administrative sequence is the story. Under the policy wording cited by prop-175, an eligible applicant receives an initial IPv6 provider-independent assignment of /48. If its requirement is larger, the additional space is assessed through the subsequent-assignment process. An organisation that already knows it needs multiple discrete networks may therefore document the plan, receive /48, proceed with deployment and then return with substantially the same plan for a second evaluation.

Prop-175 version 1 proposes moving that needs test to the first request. The minimum initial assignment would remain /48, but APNIC could approve a larger initial block when the applicant demonstrates a requirement above that threshold. The size would still be governed by conservation, aggregation, fairness and minimisation of global routing-table growth.

The text does not invent a new assessment method. It points to APNIC-114 Section 9.2, which already governs assignments larger than /48, and adapts that framework to an applicant that does not yet hold a PI assignment. The requirement to demonstrate use of a previous assignment would not apply. The routing criterion would instead be read against the proposed initial block: the applicant would have to show how it would minimise announcements, maximise aggregation and limit routing-table growth.

That substitution is necessary, but it is not trivial. A subsequent request can be tested against a deployed network and the use of an existing block. An initial request is necessarily about a plan. The proposal therefore moves administrative effort forward and changes the evidence available at the decision point, even while keeping the formal needs-based standard.

The author argues that the change could avoid duplicate requests, reduce repeated evaluation and prevent an avoidable second assignment where one appropriately sized initial block would support the documented deployment. Those are plausible benefits, not measured outcomes. APNIC's proposal page displayed no Secretariat impact assessment, implementation schedule or estimate of how many applicants would use the route when this report was frozen.

The scope is narrow. Existing eligibility, use, announcement, monitoring and reclamation requirements would remain. The proposal would not create a new resource category, expand who may apply or alter IPv6 transfer policy. It identifies changes to policy and guideline wording, request forms, Hostmaster guidance and public documentation as possible implementation work.

APNIC records version 1 as posted on 19 August 2026 with status “Published to Mailing List.” That status must not be confused with consensus, endorsement or implementation. The current proposal list places prop-175 under discussion on the mailing list rather than among the proposals scheduled for decision at the APNIC 62 Open Policy Meeting.

Sources