prop-170: Nibble-Boundary Alignment for IPv6 Allocations
| Proposal text | prop-170-v001.txt |
|---|---|
| Objective |
The objective of this proposal is to introduce a clear and conditional nibble-boundary alignment mechanism for LIR IPv6 allocations under Section 8, while preserving APNIC’s existing needs-based review, resource stewardship, and operational flexibility. |
| Current status | For Discussion at APNIC 62 OPM |
| Authors |
Haisheng Yu and Haijun Li |
| Relevant forum | Policy SIG |
| Previous versions | N/A |
| Secretariat impact assessment |
1. APNIC’s Understanding of the Proposed PolicyAPNIC understands this proposal as introducing a conditional mechanism for IPv6 allocations to be aligned on nibble boundaries where the applicant requests this and the need has been validated under existing needs-based assessment. The proposal does not change the current /32 minimum IPv6 allocation, does not apply to IPv6 assignments, and does not require existing resource holders to renumber, return, or resize existing allocations unless the expansion of an existing allocation can not be met due to overlapping allocations. 2. Impact of Proposed Policy on Registry and Addressing SystemRegistry systems and internal tools may need to support allocation outcomes that align with nibble boundaries, while preserving the existing needs-based assessment model. 3. Impact of Proposed Policy on APNIC Operation/ServicesInternal guidance documentation will need to be updated to reflect allocation outcomes that align with nibble boundaries, while preserving the existing needs-based assessment model 4. Legal Impact of PolicyNo material legal issues identified 5. ImplementationIf this policy was to reach consensus the policy proposal will require changes to APNIC-127. APNIC secretariat would suggest that the definitions listed in the proposal be moved to section 2 in-line with other document definitions. Internal guidance and assessment processes would require updating. If prop-170 and prop-164 both reached consensus, drafting revisions would be required to ensure the policies do not conflict. |
| Proposal history | |
| 25 July 2026 | Version 1 posted to the Policy SIG mailing list for community discussion. |
| 18 August 2026 | Secretariat impact assesment posted to the Policy SIG mailing list for community discussion. |