Summary

  • LACNIC's official presentation at LACNIC 46 schedules the first implementation stage of policy LAC-2025-5 for December 2026. Third-party IPv4 sub-assignments would initially be possible only between direct associates inside each of LACNIC, NIC México and NIC.br. Cross-organization operation is Stage 2, with no date set.
  • The planned MiLACNIC/NIR workflow checks the block and the recipient's need. Parties arrange the economic agreement directly outside that platform. The ratified policy requires WHOIS identification, a public start/end movement log and three-year restrictions that limit the address holder's next move.

LACNIC has drawn a door into the wall around IPv4 addresses. At first, it has drawn three doors, and each opens into its own room. Alfredo Verderosa's implementation presentation at LACNIC 46 puts December 2026 beside Stage 1 of third-party sub-assignment. The drawing beneath it is unusually frank: LACNIC direct management, NIC México and NIC.br appear as separate islands. Only direct associates of the same organization can use the first stage with one another. Arrows between the islands appear under Stage 2. Its date is still to be defined.

That boundary matters to a small ISP looking for addresses. A policy can cover the LACNIC service region while its first usable transaction path remains local to one registration system. A holder registered with one organization and a recipient registered with another will have to wait for the cross-organization machinery. The slide supplies no timetable for that bridge. Anyone selling December as a single regionwide exchange is selling a bridge before the engineers have given it a date.

The published LAC-2025-5 policy record still calls the measure Ratified, dated 24 March 2026. The October presentation is an implementation plan, with a December target for the first stage. It does not publish an operating transaction, a live public-log entry or an exact launch day. That difference between the board's approval and a member's working button is the difference between a market rule and a market route.

LACNIC's own rationale is blunt. Its earlier rule barred sub-assigning IPv4 to a third party outside the recipient's infrastructure. Informal leasing left transactions unrecorded and weakened the registry's picture of who was actually using an address. The ratified text offers a path for qualifying holders to make such use visible. It keeps the use inside the LACNIC region, excludes the critical-infrastructure reserve and limits each block to the range from /24 to /22. A recipient needs an ASN and IPv6 space assigned by LACNIC; the provider needs a current contract with LACNIC or the relevant national registry. The recipient must substantiate immediate use or need for at least 25% of the block and project at least 50% use within a year. The first stage therefore opens a narrow lane, not a free-for-all with a new sign.

The platform design reveals where LACNIC means to exercise power. The presentation shows the offering member selecting eligible blocks in MiLACNIC or an NIR system, the recipient justifying need, and automatic checks testing the policy criteria. Then the commercial arrangement leaves the building: the economic agreement is concluded directly between the parties, outside MiLACNIC. LACNIC can control which resource movement its registry accepts and what it records. The slides do not put it at the bargaining table or the payment terminal. That split may keep the registry out of price-setting while still making the address trail inspectable.

The trail has teeth beyond a database row. Under the final policy text, WHOIS must connect the block to the recipient ASN, and a public movement log must record the block, ASN, event date and whether the sub-assignment began or ended. The offering member remains responsible for the use of the addresses and must terminate a sub-assignment when the recipient breaks the manual's obligations; LACNIC may revoke resources under its policies. The recipient cannot sub-assign the block onward. These are the controls that turn a bilateral arrangement into a registry-recognized use of scarce public numbering space.

The most expensive control may be the three-year clock. A block obtained directly from LACNIC or by transfer cannot enter this form of sub-assignment for three years after receipt. Once an organization makes a qualifying sub-assignment, it cannot request fresh IPv4 or receive a transfer for three years after its last such sub-assignment. An offerer choosing to earn value from existing stock is therefore also choosing to close a future supply route for a while. Every additional deal can reset that second clock. There is a real business decision hidden inside a rule that could otherwise look like paperwork.

Two dates now deserve space on an operator's calendar. December is the planned opening for within-organization use; the cross-organization date remains blank. The first publication of a working WHOIS linkage and movement-log entry will show whether the promised traceability exists in operation. Until those receipts appear, the most useful picture is the one in LACNIC's own slide: three functioning-looking rooms on a drawing, a bridge reserved for later, and a contract signed on a different table.

Sources: LACNIC 46 official presentation by Alfredo Verderosa; LACNIC's final LAC-2025-5 policy record, version 2; LACNIC 46 programme.