Summary

  • Tomohiro Fujisaki and Hiroki Kawabata's prop-165-v004 would let an organization eligible for an initial IPv6 allocation request one IPv4 /24 for transitional services. The block would come from APNIC's Final /8, count against its existing entitlement and be barred from transfer or reassignment.
  • Applicants would submit an IPv6-only deployment declaration rather than detailed IPv4 host counts. APNIC could request supporting evidence and later review continued need. The APNIC 62 report records no consensus call on the proposal in September 2026.

The slogan is IPv6-only. The resolver still needs to talk to an IPv4-only service; the mail gateway may too. Fujisaki and Kawabata's proposal tries to supply that small bridge without asking an operator to pretend it is building an ordinary IPv4 network. It would offer a single /24 to an organization eligible for an initial IPv6 allocation. No detailed host-count justification would be required. A deployment declaration would name the IPv6-only network and the transition services that need IPv4.

The /24 would not be a bonus shelf. Version 4 draws it from the Final /8 and counts it toward the holder's existing IPv4 maximum. It bars transfer and reassignment. APNIC could ask for evidence that the IPv6-only deployment exists, then periodically ask whether the IPv6 allocation and transition use still exist. The review is to rely on declarations, without technical inspection of the member's network. If the need ends, the block goes back.

That is where the neat trade turns awkward. APNIC's published impact assessment is expressly for v003. It asks how staff should tell whether the /24 really supports an IPv6-only network, and how periodic checks should work. Version 4 answers part of that with declarations, while leaving the institution to decide what evidence is enough. APNIC reported that 1.2% of its members held IPv6 but no IPv4 on 30 June 2026. That is the size of a category, not a forecast of requests.

The proposed tap also has a shutoff. New grants stop if APNIC projects Final /8 exhaustion within six months using the prior twelve months' delegation rate, or if the remaining pool falls below a community-set reserve. The draft supplies no number for that reserve. APNIC 62 made no consensus call; APNIC's meeting account says the revised text arrived shortly before the meeting and needed more review. The /24 bridge remains a proposal, with the proof test and cutoff still on the table.