March 2026 - ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

ENUM (e164.arpa): background, scope, and coordination steps
by Hisham Ibrahim 08 Apr '26

08 Apr '26

Dear colleagues, This message summarises recent discussion regarding ENUM (e164.arpa) and clarifies the scope and next steps. The RIPE NCC has operated the e164.arpa registry for many years under instructions and coordination arrangements established with the ITU-T and IAB. These arrangements, and the operational context for how the registry is run, are described here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/dns/enum/iab-instructions/ Recently, a request was raised in the RIPE Database Working Group to support ENUM (e164.arpa) in RDAP for querying the RIPE Database. We noted that RDAP support for ENUM is not currently implemented, but could be added if there is clear interest. We also checked current query patterns and found a few hundred ENUM-related queries per day in DNS and in Database; so low usage, but not zero. Following discussion on the Database WG mailing list, including replies in support, we proposed implementing RDAP support for ENUM. While this is a limited operational change, it was recognised that anything touching E.164 and e164.arpa can raise political questions that go beyond the purely technical. As e164.arpa is directly linked to the ITU E.164 numbering system, the relevant points of contact are typically national administrations and the entities they designate. This led us to consult ITU-T Study Group 2 to clarify the status of ENUM and its usage and needs for ongoing support. ITU-T will ask member states for their feedback and share this with us. ITU-T provides an established and coordinated channel to reach those administrations, and importantly confirm whether any delegating authorities still rely on the service, so our technical decisions are informed by real-world use and help us avoid unnecessary operational risk, confusion, or compliance headaches (including in the context of regulatory frameworks such as NIS2). We are also reaching out to the IAB regarding these operations, which the RIPE NCC performs under its instruction on behalf of the global DNS and Internet community. I am sharing this message with the DNS, Database, Cooperation and RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing lists to ensure all relevant working groups are informed. If you wish to share thoughts in response, please reply to the thread on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list. Best regards, Hisham Ibrahim Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC

3 4

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q2 2026
by Boris Duval 27 Mar '26

27 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, We have now published the upcoming quarterly plans for our development teams: https://www.ripe.net/quarterly-planning <https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning> We publish these plans each quarter to showcase the work items we will be carrying out over the next months. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to suggest items that the RIPE NCC should be working on going forward. The plans cover the following areas: - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications. - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - Routing Information Service (RIS) - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance - Training and Certification If you have any questions or input on these plans, please share your suggestions on this list or the RIPE NCC Forum: https://forum.ripe.net/ Kind regards, Boris Duval Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Charging scheme discussions
by Rob Evans 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hi all, Whilst it is good to see discussion happening on the working group list, this is just a gentle reminder that this working group is for discussion on the services offered by the RIPE NCC. Comments about the proposed aspects of a future charging scheme should take place on <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. Thanks! Rob (On behalf of the NCC Services WG co-chairs.)

3 5

Concerns Regarding Proposed Increased Fees for PI Resources
by Viktoriia Opanasiuk 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Working group, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposals under consideration for the future RIPE NCC charging scheme, specifically the potential increase in fees for PI Assignment. Any changes to the charging scheme should take regional characteristics into account. Different countries within the RIPE service region have diverse network structures, operator sizes, and resource usage patterns. In Ukraine, PI resources are widely used to ensure network resilience and independence, and the number of organizations using PI blocks significantly exceeds the number of LIRs. This widespread use of PI addressing contributes to a decentralized, robust, and distributed Internet infrastructure. A disproportionate increase in fees for PI blocks, as currently proposed in the consultations, would place a significant financial burden on small ISPs, regional networks, and other infrastructure organizations, many of which are already operating under serious economic pressure during long-term war. This could have several unintended consequences: - Higher fees may discourage the use of PI addressing for multihoming, potentially affecting network resilience and independence. - Additional costs may strain budgets, limiting the ability to maintain robust network architectures. - PI resources are essential for redundancy and rapid traffic rerouting in the event of failures; increasing their cost could unintentionally reduce the adoption of these practices. I therefore urge the Task Force to maintain annual fees for PI resources at the current level, avoiding disproportionate financial burden on operators that rely on these resources for critical connectivity. I appreciate the efforts of the Task Force and the transparency of the ongoing consultation process, and hope that the regional specifics of Ukraine will be duly considered. -- Kind regards, Regional Director Viner Telecom ISP

1 0