Summary

  • Katsuyasu Toyama and seven coauthors proposed portable IPv6 assignments for end sites that were multihomed or would be within three months; the first draft said unused space must be reclaimed.
  • APNIC adopted prop-035 and implemented it in 2007. An archived policy retained a three-month reclaim rule, while today's APNIC multihoming criterion no longer carries that sentence.

In 2006, an end site could want two Internet providers without wanting its address to belong to either one. IPv6 policy offered no portable assignment for that customer. Katsuyasu Toyama and seven coauthors put a remedy in prop-035's first version: an end site already multihomed, or planning to be, could receive a portable IPv6 block regardless of its size. The normal assignment was a /48, with a shorter prefix available on justification. The price was a deadline. The site had to use the block for multihoming within three months, or the space must be reclaimed.

The second version, dated 6 September, kept the three-month test but changed one verb: unused space should be reclaimed. That switch did not prove APNIC ever relaxed a real enforcement action. It shows the authors refining how hard the return obligation sounded while arguing for portable space. A /48 that survives a provider change helps an operator avoid renumbering; a /48 held without the proposed multihoming purpose looked different to the registry and to networks worried about routing-table growth.

Toyama presented the proposal at APNIC 22. The minutes describe the three-month condition and the debate alongside a broader portable-address proposal. The chair found agreement that a policy for portable assignments was needed, then consensus for prop-035. The APNIC history records final call, Executive Council endorsement on 15 December 2006 and implementation on 19 March 2007. APNIC's archived IPv6 policy later stated that space not used for multihoming after three months will be reclaimed. Draft verbs moved; the published rule kept a firm clock.

Then the bargain changed. Prop-101, led by David Woodgate in 2012–13, removed the absolute multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments. APNIC's current resource policy still lists multihoming as one eligibility path and keeps a /48 minimum, but its section 9.1.1 has no three-month reclaim sentence. This is a later policy, not a hidden footnote to Toyama's 2006 win.

The cited APNIC records count no historical reclamations under the three-month rule. A dated assignment-and-reclamation log would show whether the clock ever took space back. The text itself reveals the contest: Toyama's group opened a portable address to smaller end sites, while APNIC reserved the right to ask whether the promised second connection arrived.

Portrait identity reference: APNIC 28's named speaker profile for Katsuyasu Toyama.