September 2026 - address-policy-wg

Feedback for potential policy proposal on IPv6
by Marco Schmidt 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to follow up on a topic I raised during RIPE 92 regarding the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy [1]. Over the years, this working group discussed a number of policy proposals to update the IPv6 policy framework. However, during recent reviews and audit activities, Registration Services found that some parts of the policy relating to the post-provisioning lifecycle could be clarified and made more consistent through a policy discussion. For example, while the term "audit" appears in some sections of the policy text, there is no general reference to the audit procedure itself (unlike in the IPv4 policy). While such reference is not a requirement to perform an audit on IPv6 resources, it would make the RIPE NCC mandate clearer to everyone. In addition, the section dealing with policy compliance and non-compliance has remained unchanged since 2002 and uses relatively complex wording: "[...] The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and assigned on a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a periodic basis. The granting of a license is subject to specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the license. RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting organisations are making a “good faith” effort at meeting the criteria under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organisation is not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right to not renew the license. Note that when a license is renewed, the new license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable IPv6 address policies in place at the time of renewal, which may differ from the policy in place at the time of the original allocation or assignment." [2] While the intent of this text remains valid, some parts may be difficult to grasp, particularly for those less familiar with RIPE policies and their historical context. As these sections primarily affect the RIPE NCC's role in assessing and maintaining policy compliance after resources have been issued, I am considering creating a policy proposal aimed at improving clarity and consistency. The intention would be to clearly define the existing framework rather than make substantive changes to the policy’s intent. Before creating this proposal, I welcome feedback from the working group. Do you think these parts of the IPv6 policy could benefit from review? Are there other areas that you believe should be clarified, updated, or taken into account if a proposal were developed? Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC [1] https://pretalx.ripe.net/media/ripe-92/submissions/JZ3KEL/resources/RIPE_92… [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738/#41-address-space-not-to-be…

5 7

Announcement: TIPTOP Interim on IP address policy / RIRs for Space Use
by Warren Kumari 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

Dear RIPE Address Policy WG, As you may remember from RIPE 92 in Edinburgh, there was a presentation on “IP Address space for Outer Space”. Sides: https://pretalx.ripe.net/media/ripe-92/submissions/RHW7DB/resources/RIPE_ad… Recording: https://ripe92.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/97/RHW7DB/#video. The questions start at 9:45 or so. This topic was also discussed at the IETF 126 Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP) meeting – recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgX1UnuUeAY&t=1363s TIPTOP will be having an interim meeting on this topic - announcement here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/vbEtKf3cCWFI9d0prl17j-V… — The Taking IP To Other Planets (tiptop) WG will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2026-09-09 from 07:00 to 08:30 America/Los_Angeles (14:00 to 15:30 UTC). Agenda: (No agenda submitted) Information about remote participation: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?session=35851 — As with most IETF interim meetings, it is held on MeetEcho. It is free to participate in, but do do require a (free) IETF Datatracker account, which can be created here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/accounts/create/ The TIPTOP chairs (CCed) asked us to announce it, and if you are interested to please join. Thanks, Warren, Jen.

2 1

Fwd: Discussion Phase for 2026-01 "Simplify Assignment of first ASN" ended
by Leslie Nobile 02 Sep '26

02 Sep '26

Dear Address Policy WG- The discussion phase for 2026-01: Simplify Assignment of first ASN ended on 05 Aug 2026. The proposers have agreed to move it to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will now create the Impact Analysis and announce the start of the Review Phase with a new version, including small modifications that take into consideration the feedback received from the community. Here is a short summary of the feedback received on this proposal: - *Support:* 6 participants supported the proposal as written. One supported it with an amendment to remove the needs assessment but retain an RPSL routing-policy requirement in the RIPE Database. - *Opposition:* Concerns were mainly about the lack of evidence that the current policy prevents operators from obtaining ASNs, the proposal being a larger policy change than necessary, the RIPE NCC already allocating more ASNs than other RIRs, the increased workload for security researchers and operational analysis, and speculative claims about enabling future BGP products. - *Additional suggestions:* One was to require ASPA information, and another supported the proposal but opposed the RPSL requirement, considering it cumbersome and unclear. - *Questions:* clarification on which resources the policy applies to and whether the proposal would allow one ASN per LIR, organisation, or company within a corporate group. Best Regards, Alex, Franziska, Leslie APWG Co-Chairs

1 0