- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Status of 2024-01 Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy
by Rhys Perry 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hi All, Apologies in advance if this is against the working group etiquette, as I mostly lurk here and am not too involved. Is there any update on the 2024-01 Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy? It was moved into its six week discussion phase on 2025-10-30, and is now apparently "Awaiting decision from proposer" according to the proposal page on ripe.net. Rhys

3 3

2024-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
by Angela Dall'Ara 26 Feb '26

26 Feb '26

Dear colleagues,   The policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28” has been withdrawn.   This proposal aimed to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from up to /29 to up to /28 and allow the extension of one IPv6 allocation per LIR up to /28 without justification.   The proposal is archived and can be found at:  https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive…   Reason for withdrawal:  The proposer did not feel that any further redrafting of the proposal would achieve consensus. Please note that as per RIPE Policy Development Process “After a withdrawal, anyone is free to re-introduce the topic on the mailing list.“ The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2024-02 (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
by Leo Vegoda 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

Dear Address Policy WG, This proposal will not be moving forward to the next phase. We are grateful to Jordi and Rinse for making and updating the proposal. Kind regards, Alex, Franziska, and Leo, your co-chairs

1 0

Addressing for other planets
by Tony Li 21 Feb '26

21 Feb '26

Hi, As part of the IETF TIPTOP working group, we are working towards enabling the Internet in outer space. We would like to direct your attention to a couple of recent Internet drafts that may be of interest: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-tiptop-ip-architecture/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-tiptop-address-space/ The latter has direct implications for the RIPE community, I would welcome any and all comments. Regards, Tony

7 26

Re: Addressing for other planets
by John Curran 21 Feb '26

21 Feb '26

> On Feb 20, 2026, at 5:12 PM, NEUCKENS Marc <marc.neuckens(a)proximus.com> wrote: > ... > On topic : maybe ip will not the protocol to be used for this type of communication (v4 or v6), so this discussion might not be relevant That’s actually an excellent question - perhaps these are supposed to specialized address space and not general purpose? Tony - Are these addresses going to be using standard IPv6 protocol or something else? Also, is this actually public space, i.e. is intended that existing Internet service providers may send/receive traffic to these prefixes? Thanks! /John

2 1

IPv6 Allocation Transfers – Update and Next Steps
by Marco Schmidt 16 Feb '26

16 Feb '26

Dear all, I would like to provide an update on our approach to IPv6 Allocation Transfers. Around 18 months ago, following guidance from the WG during RIPE 88, we updated our approach to IPv6 allocation transfer requests. When the receiving member already holds an IPv6 allocation, they must now demonstrate how they utilise their existing allocation or justify the need for another one, in line with policy requirements. [1] Since then, around 1,100 IPv6 allocations have been returned to the RIPE NCC instead of being transferred, since they were no longer needed or justified. This is an increase of nearly 300% compared to the previous period. At the same time, around 650 allocations were transferred where operational need was demonstrated, reflecting an overall reduction of about 75% in IPv6 allocation transfers. Now, we are still seeing organisations holding multiple IPv6 allocations accumulated over time and have therefore started a second phase of this approach. We are conducting IPv6-focused audits with selected members with 10 or more IPv6 allocations to better understand deployment plans and assess compliance with the current RIPE IPv6 policies. This may lead to further discussion in the WG, including a possible policy review. If your organisation holds multiple IPv6 allocations that are no longer needed, or if you are unsure about policy compliance, please contact Registration Services via the LIR Portal to return unused resources or request a compliance review. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC [1] https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/thread/SR…

1 0

Discussion: IPv4 leasing transparency in the RIPE Database
by James Kennedy 10 Feb '26

10 Feb '26

Dear AP-WG, While researching for my recent MENOG25 presentation, I noticed a transparency gap around IPv4 leasing — where LIRs delegate a block of address space to third parties who then operate it. A reportedly growing practice in our region and globally, driven by legitimate organisational needs for temporary IPv4 capacity. Yet there are no clear common guidelines for how LIRs should document who actually operates leased space, resulting in inconsistent registration practices. A sample taken of 50 leased prefixes showed multiple status attributes in use, only 26% with abuse contacts, and over half with no identification of the actual operator of the address space (or the ‘lessee’). - The Problem - Back in 2021, the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force established that registration data should be accurate to "facilitate contact with and identification of the organisation holding the assignment" (RIPE-767). The Task Force also strongly recommended that where a resource holder delegates resources to another entity, this should be documented. Existing registration mechanisms can technically accommodate leasing — LIRs can create assignments or sub-allocations. But without specific guidance, these registrations frequently fail to identify the actual operator or provide functional abuse contacts. Research from the University of Twente estimated 6.1% of routed prefixes were leased in February 2025, and found leased prefixes then were 2.89× more likely to be blocklisted — a disparity that warrants examination regardless of root cause. In practice, this means: 1. Rather than the actual operator of the IP block, abuse complaints frequently reach the LIR/lessor who may have no operational control 2. WHOIS often does not identify ‘who is’ actually operating the address space - The Question - Does the WG believe this transparency gap warrants discussion? With ongoing IPv4 recycling, leasing may well become an increasingly common practice. Establishing clear registration expectations now seems preferable to addressing this retroactively. - Possible Approaches - If the WG sees value in addressing this, potential mechanisms could range from: * A policy principle: where a third party operates leased address space, they should be identifiable * Guidance on what information LIRs should document for consistency, including functional abuse contacts and lease duration * A new status attribute (e.g., "LEASED PA") to explicitly reflect this distinct type of delegation of public IP space from an LIR to a third party - Clarification - 'Standard' assignments — where the LIR provides services and retains operational involvement — are not in scope. This applies only where a third party operates the space without direct involvement from the LIR. No commercial terms or pricing need be disclosed — only who to contact and who is operating the space. - Discussion Points - * Is the transparency gap problematic enough to warrant action? * What information would be operationally useful to capture? * What implementation challenges or unintended consequences should we consider? I have already consulted with stakeholders who see value in this direction, but I'm keen to hear broader perspectives from the WG. Best regards, James Kennedy https://www.kipa.global References: University of Twente — "From Scarcity to Opportunity: Examining Abuse of the IPv4 Leasing Market" (2025): https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/497142547/tma2025_paper18.pdf RIPE Database Requirements Task Force Report (RIPE-767): https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767

1 0

Re: Launch of The Internet Ecosystem Book
by Peter Anderson 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

*(Apologies for cross-posting)* As a researcher, I have never come across a highly intensive and inclusive book like "The Internet Ecosystem". The book englobes the whole Internet Ecosystem with the correct information compared to misleading information from blogs/wikipedia on the Internet. This book was reviewed by Vint Cerf. I have just completed the reading, I will highly recommend it and it is nice to have a copy to keep for reference. Professor Peter Anderson Head of Research ------------------------------ *From:* Nikesh B. Simmandree <nikeshbs(a)outlook.com> *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2025 1:35 PM *To:* alac-announce(a)icann.org <alac-announce(a)icann.org>; alac(a)icann.org < alac(a)icann.org>; at-large(a)icann.org <at-large(a)icann.org>; afri-discuss(a)icann.org <afri-discuss(a)icann.org> *Subject:* Launch of The Internet Ecosystem Book Dear Community, I am thrilled to announce the launch of my book, *The Internet Ecosystem* — a comprehensive exploration of the history, architecture, governance, and future of the Internet. This book distills decades of technological evolution — from ARPANET and packet switching, to AI, Web3, quantum networks, and beyond — into a clear, engaging narrative accessible to both technical and non-technical readers *What the Book Covers* - *The Past:* How Cold War research, ARPANET, and packet switching gave birth to the Internet we know today. - *The Present:* The intricate roles of ISPs, backbone providers, cloud infrastructure, AI, cybersecurity, and global governance shaping our daily online experiences. - *The Future:* Insights into 5G/6G, blockchain, immersive technologies, quantum security, and the Internet in 2050. With *49 detailed chapters*, the book provides a definitive yet approachable reference for students, professionals, policymakers, and curious readers alike. My mission with *The Internet Ecosystem* is to make the Internet’s complexity understandable — showing not only *how* the Internet works, but also *why* it matters and has become one of the most transformative human inventions — while sparking dialogue on how we build a secure, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. In the 21st century, understanding the Internet is not optional — it’s essential. Whether you’re a business leader, policymaker, educator, student, or everyday Internet user, this book provides the context and clarity you need to navigate the opportunities and challenges of our connected world. *Get Your Copy* *The Internet Ecosystem* is now available: https://payhip.com/b/hfvYg Thank you, Best Regards, Nikesh B. Simmandree +230-5-907-3413 nikeshbs(a)outlook.com This message and its attachments are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and are strictly confidential. If you have received this in error, please delete it from any devices after having informed the sender.

2 1

RIPE 91 Address Policy WG - Draft Minutes Published
by Leo Vegoda 07 Jan '26

07 Jan '26

Dear Address Policy WG, We have received the draft minutes for the APWG sessions at RIPE91 and the NCC has published them for your review: https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/ap/minutes/ripe-91-address-poli… RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group Minutes ripe.net We'd like to thank Ed and Antony from the NCC for preparing the draft for us. Please review the minutes and provide feedback if you find anything missing or incorrect. Best regards, Leo Vegoda, Alex le Heux, Franziska Lichtblau Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status
by Brander Group 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Hello Clara, We have always appreciate your contributions to the community; they have never gone unnoticed. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft proposal. After evaluating the rationale presented, we would like to offer several important considerations before this moves forward. 1. The proposal seems to extend beyond a simple clarification of legacy status Framing this as a clarification minimizes the actual substantive change being introduced. The draft attempts to modify how legacy resources are treated within RIPE. This looks like more of a policy change request — rather than a clarification — and should probably be evaluated as such. 2. RIPE service fees already apply when members choose to adopt additional services such as RPKI Opting into RPKI is a voluntary operational decision and already incurs a RIPE service fee. This is not an example of a loophole or unfair circumvention. The current system already aligns incentives without requiring a change to legacy status inheritance. 3. The operational burden described does not appear to represent a systemic or material issue The referenced 0.5 FTE and the stated processing times should be evaluated in context. The minimal legacy transfers annually (which can be clarified as a percentage of total requests by RIPE) does not constitute a large-scale operational problem. Before moving forward with a policy change of this magnitude, it would be prudent to directly audit the RIPE NCC Registration Services teams workload to determine if these transfers materially impede normal levels of service level as compared to previous years. A policy change intended to reduce operational strain should be based on explicit confirmation from the impacted teams that the strain is significant enough to warrant structural change. All the best, Jake Brander President | Brander Group Inc. O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266 jake(a)brandergroup.net<mailto:jake@brandergroup.net> | www.brandergroup.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brandergroup.net&d=…> Take Advantage of our Free IPAM Software– Learn More<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__brandergroup.net_brand…> Award Winners for Revenue Growth & Support – Read More<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__brandergroup.net_press…> Provider Agnostic Solutions with Wholesale Prices – Learn More<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__brandergroup.net_solut…> From: Mike Burns <mike(a)iptrading.com<mailto:mike@iptrading.com>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 6:56 PM To: 'denis walker' <ripedenis(a)gmail.com<mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com>>; 'Antonis Chariton' <daknob(a)daknob.net<mailto:daknob@daknob.net>> Cc: 'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>' <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>>; 'peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>' <peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>>; 'Wade, Clara' <clarawad(a)amazon.com<mailto:clarawad@amazon.com>> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status Hello, My problem with the upcoming proposal is this inaccurate statement: “This is currently being used as a loophole by certain actors to opt out of having a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC in order to circumvent: RIPE registration services fees. 1. The 24-month transfer lock that was introduced by this working group to prevent flipping of scarce resources. 2. Needs-based inter-RIR transfer policy utilization requirements in the case of transfers from another RIR to a recipient of a legacy resource transfer in the RIPE region.” Point 2 is plainly incorrect. Please take this as feedback that this should be removed from any policy proposal. The truth is that utilization requirements apply only to inbound transfers from ARIN, and those transfers are treated the same whether legacy status or not. Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading. From: denis walker <ripedenis(a)gmail.com<mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:30 PM To: Antonis Chariton <daknob(a)daknob.net<mailto:daknob@daknob.net>> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>; peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>; Wade, Clara <clarawad(a)amazon.com<mailto:clarawad@amazon.com>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status Hi Antonis Maybe I am missing something here. But all I am hearing is: LEGACY-GREED LEGACY-MONEY LEGACY-PROFIT LEGACY-LOW SECURITY LEGACY-ATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED Maybe it is time to end any LEGACY special considerations. There is nothing special about LEGACY space. These people were just lucky to be given a huge chunk of address space at a time when people didn't understand the potential or value of addresses. Since then society, technology, internet structures, e-governance have all moved on. We became more organised and structured, Everything has moved on except LEGACY holders. Maybe it is time we had one simple rule. ALL address space usage must be registered and managed in the same way, with an RIR, regardless of how you acquired it. You say this will force LEGACY holders to operate outside of the RIR system. What if all the RIR members blocked all addresses that are not properly registered (with one of the RIRs) and accountable? I have no operator experience so I don't know if it is technically (or politically / financially) possible to shut out ALL un-registered address space. If it is, I think we should do it. Have one last showdown. Join the club or stay out in the cold. I don't want your insecure, unaccountable customers connected to my internet. I am not an operator or routing expert, so I may be talking complete rubbish here. But I think you understand the principle I am suggesting. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can outline if/how we can collectively shut out LEGACY space if they refuse to join the club? There is of course another path that may be forced onto LEGACY holders and the RIRs...legislation. LEAs are getting more involved now in registry activities. While they have one foot in our camp, maybe their other foot is in the legislators camp. Especially the European Commision (EC). Operators no longer have full control over operations. Some of the LEGACY space is trying to operate outside of 'the system'. In an area where they are less accountable and they may attract 'undesirable' customers who are not easy to identify or locate. I suspect the timespan for the RIPE community to sort this out is shrinking. Look at some of the legislation that has come from the EC in recent years. Things like the e-evidence act. They have adopted ways of spreading the impact of their legislation beyond the borders of the EU. Another thought came to mind. I have never seen one of these agreements under which LEGACY holders were 'given' this address space. Do these agreements say that the terms and conditions are transferable? Can someone who 'buys' LEGACY space legitimately claim to 'own' it under the same conditions as the previous owner? Just a few thoughts... cheers denis On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 17:53, Antonis Chariton via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Thanks for the quick response Clara! Perhaps my feedback was not too clear, no worries :) — Existing resource holders will indeed keep their status, but I see a couple of things here: 1) When / if you transfer IPv4 you’ll be faced with a decision (and I guess most people will choose the status over RPKI) 2) When / if the charging scheme changes and doesn’t take the status into account (e.g. legacy counts towards the tier / membership fee) people will cancel the RIPE NCC legacy agreement (and just lose IRR / RPKI) The only reason I brought up #2 here, despite it not being related to your policy proposal, is that since both are public documents enough entities may connect the dots and realize that their legacy status is far more valuable than before. I’d argue that this current proposal increases the value of legacy, especially when combined with a new charging scheme. I hope that’s clearer now. Finally, in my experience at least, money is always a good reason to follow anti-patterns :( It’s true that there’s increased risk from IPv4 legacy but I’d argue that for most entities that will be affected this risk is lower than the costs that are or will be associated with it. Legacy cannot (easily?) be touched today by RIRs (we can only make the holders’ life more difficult) while PA is far more “vulnerable” to new policies and changes. PA also carries some risk at the end of the day and comes without any warranty. Antonis On 30 Oct 2025, at 17:38, Wade, Clara via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Antonis, Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. It seems there’s a misunderstanding here. This policy proposal is forward-looking. We are not going to attempt to backfill/retrofit this change as we are trying to reduce overhead for the NCC, not generate more. We are simply trying to close a loophole that keeps getting exploited. As I mentioned in my response to Dominik, changing the holdership without going through due process is an anti-pattern and it also goes explicitly against the RIPE NCC process for legacy resource transfers outlined here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tra…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_manage-2D…> As I said before, hopefully, anyone engaging in these practices understands the risks they are assuming (for them and their customers if they are a service provider) by doing so. I would hope the community strives to build reliable networks rather than go against database accuracy and routing security best practices to avoid paying very reasonable registration service fees to safekeep important resources (especially in the case of most organizations where they do not pose a material cost). Thank you, Clara From: Antonis Chariton <daknob(a)daknob.net<mailto:daknob@daknob.net>> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 11:06 AM To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> Cc: "Wade, Clara" <clarawad(a)amazon.com<mailto:clarawad@amazon.com>>, "peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>" <peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>>, Max Emig <ripe(a)emigm.ax<mailto:ripe@emigm.ax>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [address-policy-wg] Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hello everyone, Although I’m not an expert in this area I’d also like to voice my agreement with Max’ point. Due to the nature of legacy IPv4 and ASes there’s no requirement for registration or notification of an RIR as far as I understand. That said, any sale can be conducted with a single contract between two parties and nobody is required to know about it. As far as I see it, these holders will face the following dilemma: RIPE IRR + RPKI or lower membership fees and retaining this status / flexibility. I think for most organizations the choice will be clear and they’ll choose the second, with the database slowly drifting away from the truth and fewer spaces being covered by ROAs. If someone has or buys an IPv4 /16 they’ll probably choose to opt-out of higher membership fees and will be fine losing a ROA or using RADB / ALTDB. This will also affect IXPs and other heavy users of IRR as more members / customers will require something in addition to RIPE’s database. If more and more entities start requesting the use of non-RIR sources of route objects this will undo progress for routing security. Finally, I expect that such policy can affect any votes for the proposed charging scheme that you’ve been working hard for all this time. Legacy blocks are usually larger and they will increase the cost / tier of someone significantly, making them naturally opposed to this change even if they believe it’s the right direction. Based on what Randy suggested and Marco’s information about the resources we spend I think keeping everything the same between LIRs and adding a transfer fee paid once as Capex / acquisition cost when e.g. the recipient is not an LIR would probably work better. If a fee cannot be applied, I’d also explore the possibility of only allowing inter-LIR transfers which means that either or both parties would have to create an LIR and the setup fee would more than cover the cost of the transaction, even if it’s only kept for a year and we get 1'000+1'800 = 2'800 EUR. That’s probably less than 1 EUR / address, reusable within the calendar year, and could cover the 0.5 FTE. I understand that a legacy-free world would simplify things for everyone, especially RIPE, and it sounds more fair, but we need to model the impact of every policy like this one realistically. Are we certain that RPKI is that good and worth the large cost we plan to impose? Are we causing harmful side effects by re-increasing the reliance and dependency on data sources we know are not meeting the same quality criteria? My personal belief is that this RIR is investing a lot more than 0.5 / 1 FTE for the benefit of the Internet so even if we treat this as a public service it may still be worth it. As an LIR and IXP member and operator I’d get more value than the cost of leaving everything as is completely. It centralizes some costs to RIPE instead of externalizing them, but economies of scale work here. Do you have any predictions as to which % of transfers or addresses will opt-in to this policy instead of just doing everything outside the RIR world? My expectation is that most transfers will opt-out at no cost to them and probably > 1 FTE worth of cost across all LIRs or IXPs / providers outside our service region. Antonis On 30 Oct 2025, at 16:17, Max Emig via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Hi Clara, a large Tier 1 carrier in the ARIN region did not update the ARIN Whois in 20 years and did not offer RPKI ROA until very recently over legal concerns and maintained their own whois along with the non-authoritative RADB. I would like to avoid any situations where organisations would have to choose between RIPE DB accuracy and routing security using RPKI ROA and legal-risks regarding out-of-region use among other concerns. Thanks Max On 30 October, 2025 15:29 CET, "Wade, Clara" <clarawad(a)amazon.com<mailto:clarawad@amazon.com>> wrote: Hi Max, I’m a little confused by the counter-argument here. Could you clarify how you believe this proposal would this lead to out-of-date data and less RPKI adoption? 1. Keeping legacy status when the resources are no longer held by the organization that received these pre-RIR administration is not really keeping the database accurate/up-to-date. 2. Legacy resource holders by default do not have access to RPKI. (You may get access by signing an agreement with the NCC, but unless you do, RPKI services are not included in the basic package offered to legacy resource holders who are not members.) Thank you, Clara From: Max Emig <ripe(a)emigm.ax<mailto:ripe@emigm.ax>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 4:54 PM To: "Wade, Clara" <clarawad(a)amazon.com<mailto:clarawad@amazon.com>> Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>>, "peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>" <peter.hessler(a)zayo.com<mailto:peter.hessler@zayo.com>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [address-policy-wg] Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening all, I oppose this policy proposal as it may lead to an increase on out-of-date data and less RPKI adoption. However, I would support adding a fee or another disincentive for keeping legacy status. Thanks Max On 27 October, 2025 17:12 CET, "Wade, Clara via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Hello everyone, Following the suggestion of the RIPE NCC, we are seeking early feedback on an upcoming policy proposal we currently have in draft status. As mentioned last week after the Registration Services update from Marco at the AP-WG session - Peter Hessler and I, members of the now concluded Charging Scheme Task Force, are drafting a policy proposal to clarify the non-transferability of legacy status to address the issues of increasing overhead for the RIPE NCC, increasing market speculation around a scarce resource and its impact on the adoption of best practices like RPKI. Our proposal will modify these existing policies: 1. “RIPE Resource Transfer Policies” (RIPE-807) with additional clarifications in the Transfer Restrictions section and the Inter-RIR policy section. M&A/org restructuring transfers will be explicitly excluded. 2. “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders” (RIPE-639) with modifications to remove the language implying new holders can keep legacy status after transfer. For background, legacy status was meant to indicate when an Internet resource had been directly assigned to the holder by IANA, before the RIRs were established. As such, ARIN, LACNIC and AFRINIC policies dictate that IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources after a policy transfer takes place (excluding M&A transfers). RIPE is the only RIR that currently allows the recipient of a legacy transfer the ability to inherit the legacy status that was assigned to the original holder by IANA. This is currently being used as a loophole by certain actors to opt out of having a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC in order to circumvent: 1. RIPE registration services fees. 2. The 24-month transfer lock that was introduced by this working group to prevent flipping of scarce resources. 3. Needs-based inter-RIR transfer policy utilization requirements in the case of transfers from another RIR to a recipient of a legacy resource transfer in the RIPE region. Following the publication of the Report of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Task Force, the membership learned that the RIPE NCC currently needs to dedicate a 0.5FTE to process legacy transfers. There are currently around 2,400 legacy resources held by 1,600 holders with no contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC (neither direct nor via a sponsor). That is around 40M IPs total or 5% of RIPE IPv4 space. In the last four years, NCC staff have processed between 370-280 legacy transfers per year, of which roughly a third do not involve a party with a contractual relationship with the NCC. Legacy transfers are more labor-intensive than other transfer types because the due diligence process requires the Registration Services team to manually source and verify pertaining documentation without the benefits of the automated processes for standard allocations. Legacy transfers take an average seven working hours to process when neither party has a contractual relationship with the NCC (around a third of legacy transfers), and six working hours to process when the parties have a contractual relationship with the NCC. If resources lost their legacy status after a transfer, these would then become standard allocations and staff could leverage enhanced compliance checks and automated processes to facilitate any future updates/transfers. These just take 1-3 working hours to process instead. Given that the task force was deemed out of scope for a policy change to address this gap, this is being brought to the attention of the Address Policy Working Group for action. If there are any concerns, questions or considerations you would like to bring up before we submit this proposal for discussion in the next week or two, we would really appreciate hearing from you so we can address these and/or incorporate them. Thanks in advance, Clara Wade ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailman.ripe.net_mailm…> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_membershi…> ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailman.ripe.net_mailm…> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_membershi…> ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailman.ripe.net_mailm…> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_membershi…>

2 1