Summary

  • LACNIC would make valid ROA coverage a prerequisite for later allocations to existing organizations, with an 80% threshold.
  • The proposal cites regional valid-route percentages, while the test applies to resources allocated or assigned to each applicant by LACNIC.

The 80% line sits at a consequential desk: the one where an organization asks LACNIC for more number resources. LAC-2026-3 would add valid Route Origin Authorization coverage to the criteria for a later allocation. The proposal is in its first consensus assessment from 21 October to 4 November 2026; LACNIC’s status page lists it as a discussion-stage proposal, not an adopted rule.

The proposed test is simple to repeat and harder to measure than it first looks. At least 80% of an organization’s IPv4 and IPv6 resources assigned or allocated by LACNIC must be covered by valid ROAs. LACNIC would verify that level using operational mechanisms it considers appropriate. A member requesting additional resources would audit its portfolio through MiLACNIC and enable RPKI for uncovered resources, according to the proposal’s impact note.

A ROA is a signed statement from an address holder authorizing an autonomous system to originate routes for specified prefixes. Network operators compare BGP announcements with those statements. LACNIC’s 2025 study reports the regional share of routes classified as valid: 46.10% for IPv4 and 60.87% for IPv6 in Latin America and the Caribbean. The proposal cites those regional figures to argue that members have the technical knowledge and capacity to deploy RPKI.

Those percentages answer a different question from the proposed gate. A regional share of valid announced routes is not a roster of organizations with at least 80% of their LACNIC-assigned address resources covered. It does not show whether a particular applicant clears the threshold, how many members do, or whether IPv4 and IPv6 are scored separately. A tidy percentage cannot carry a different denominator just because both measures wear the word coverage.

That distinction matters because the consequence attaches to the applicant. If the organization falls below the line, the proposal makes compliance a prerequisite for approving a subsequent allocation. The impact text exempts new members, members who are not requesting more resources, legacy resources and resources not obtained from LACNIC. The rule would therefore meet a specific class of existing members at a specific point in their growth: the next request.

Version 1 leaves several working details open. It does not say whether the 80% is calculated independently for IPv4 and IPv6 or across a combined portfolio. It does not define how an aggregate ROA covering a large block and more-specific announcements count against assigned address space, or which snapshot date decides the result. Nor does it state in this proposal how an applicant can challenge a disputed calculation. LACNIC already points members to its RPKI tools; the proposal gives the registry room to choose the verification mechanism.

This is more than a dashboard choice. LACNIC staff would verify the figure before releasing additional resources, so the method would help determine which applicant gets through the allocation gate. A reproducible formula, a visible record of the counted resources and a correction route would make the 80% condition easier to apply consistently. The first consensus assessment is where the community can press those details while the number is still proposed text.

Sources: LACNIC proposal LAC-2026-3; proposal status and stage; LACNIC’s 2025 RPKI adoption study; LACNIC Policy Development Process; RFC 9582; RFC 9319; LACNIC RPKI FAQ.