June 2026 - address-policy-wg

Discussion: Do we still share a common understanding of an IPv6 End Site?
by Yuli Azarch 14 Aug '26

14 Aug '26

Hello AP-WG, While following IPv6-related discussions over the past few years [Such as: https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/message/F…] I have found myself wondering whether the community still shares a common understanding of what constitutes an “End Site” in practice for IPv6 deployments. What makes something a separate end-site? *Core problem statement* Many aspects of the IPv6 assignment policy and documentation of assignments in the RIPE Database are based on assignments made to "End Sites”. The definition exists but is anchored to subscriber-location, and it's not obvious if it covers operationally or topologically distinct deployments, which is what I'd value the community's view on. That ambiguity may have been tolerable when most deployments followed relatively common patterns, but the wider range of deployment models in use today makes the lack of precision more noticeable. Operational and deployment models have evolved considerably since the original definition was introduced. I am interested in understanding whether the community believes the current interpretation remains clear and consistently understood. *Some areas where differing interpretations may exist include:* • What qualifies a deployment as a distinct end-site? Physical location only, or also operational/topological separation? • Whether an End Site is primarily a legal entity, an organization, a network, a physical location, a single end-user, or an operational deployment? • How the concept applies to distributed enterprise networks spanning multiple locations? I would be interested to hear views, examples, and operational experiences from others. -- Best regards, *Yuli Azarch*

4 9

IPv6 end-site definition
by Yuli Azarch 16 Jun '26

16 Jun '26

Hi Franziska (and fellow Address Policy chairs), We spoke briefly during RIPE 92. I'm exploring whether there's a case to clarify the end-site definition in IPv6 policy, and before taking anything to the list I'd value your view on the framing and angle. The thought: the assignment and utilisation provisions are anchored to "per End Site," but the definition describes a subscriber location - a unit that doesn't map cleanly onto how address space is used in many deployments today. That creates room for inconsistent interpretation worth addressing. If you've had conversations on this with community members off-list, or have a sense of whether it's been raised before, any steer would be appreciated. Yuli -- Best regards, *Yuli Azarch* CEO & Co-Founder [image: RapidSeedBox] W: *www. <https://followup.cc/l/10355620/82d48c1301f2ee846cbf37acc97cebe7/http%3A%2F%…>RapidSeedbox.com <https://www.rapidseedbox.com>* P: (+1)3039520447 <(303)%20952-0447>

2 2

2024-01: "Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy" - current state
by Franziska Lichtblau 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

Dear Address-Policy WG, the discussion phase for proposal 2024-01: "Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy" ended on 24 April. The proposers have agreed to advance it to the Review Phase. Eight people supported the proposal and the proposers agreed to include minor editorial changes suggested during the Discussion Phase and at RIPE 92 into their new version. The RIPE NCC will publish the impact analysis and the policy draft, and announce the start of the Review Phase. Best regards, Alex, Franziska, Leslie APWG co-Chairs

1 0

New AS Number Blocks Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Marco Schmidt 02 Jun '26

02 Jun '26

Dear colleagues, On 1 June 2026, the RIPE NCC received the following AS Number blocks from IANA: 216476-217499 217500-218523 218524-219547 You may want to update your records accordingly. All allocations of AS Numbers made by IANA to RIRs are listed here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0