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

Discussion: Do we still share a common understanding of an IPv6 End Site?
by Yuli Azarch 27 Jun '26

27 Jun '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*

1 0

IPv6 end-site definition
by Yuli Azarch 17 Jun '26

17 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

New on RIPE Labs: Legacy Out of Contract
by Alun Davies 15 May '26

15 May '26

Dear colleagues, Following on from our 2024 look back at 10 years of legacy policy, we’ve been taking a deeper dive into out-of-contract legacy address space managed by the RIPE NCC. Qasim Lone and colleagues provide a detailed breakdown of the numbers and explore the behaviours that emerge from this region of IPv4. Read more on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/legacy-out-of-contract/ Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0

Making Resource Holders Easier to Identify: Introducing reg-nr: in the RIPE Database
by Marco Schmidt 30 Apr '26

30 Apr '26

Dear colleagues, We’re happy to share that, as of 30 April, the reg-nr: attribute is now available in the RIPE Database following the completion of NWI-21. https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/numbered-work-items/ First proposed at RIPE 91 in the Address Policy Working Group and then discussed further in the Database Working Group, it’s now in place ahead of RIPE 92. This is a great example of how community input can quickly turn into something tangible and useful. Thank you to all who provided feedback and contributed to this outcome. The reg-nr: attribute adds the official company registration number of resource holders to organisation objects co-maintained by the RIPE NCC. This makes it easier to clearly identify organisations, especially where names are similar or the same. Please note that this does not apply to all organisation objects. For privacy reasons, a reg-nr: with value "Not applicable" will be published for natural persons and governmental organisations. If you come across information that appears incorrect or incomplete, please let us know by sending an email to ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net. Our Member Services team will follow up. More details are available in the RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/marco_schmidt/making-resource-holders-easier-t… Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

2024-01 New Discussion Phase (Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy)
by Angela Dall'Ara 24 Apr '26

24 Apr '26

Dear colleagues,   Version 2 of RIPE policy proposal 2024-01 "Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion again. The proposers and the APWG Chairs decided to open a new Discussion Phase because of the limited feedback received in the previous one. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-01 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.   The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781  We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to  address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 April 2026.   Kind regards,   Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

12 13

Draft Agenda RIPE92
by Franziska Lichtblau 17 Apr '26

17 Apr '26

Hi, We have a draft agenda for the Address Policy WG's two sessions at RIPE 92. Please note, that the agenda might still change until the upcoming meeting. Session 1, Thursday 11:30 UTC A Open session B Co-chair selection C ASO AC Update, Hervé Clément, Constanze Bürger, Andrei Robachevsky D Policy Update, Angela Dall'Ara E Registration Services Update, Marco Schmidt F IP address allocations to celestial bodies (informational), Tony Li Session 2, Thursday 14:00 UTC A Recycling AS Numbers, Antonis Chariton B IPv6 PI (2024.01), Tobias Fiebig C Legacy status: pre proposal discussion, Clara Wade D Open Mic You can find the whole meeting plan here: https://ripe92.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ Looking forward to seeing you there! Your co-chairs, Alex, Franziska, Leo

1 0

Re: 2024-01
by Aron Strecker 04 Apr '26

04 Apr '26

Hello everyone, I want to support this as well -> +1 from me. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen | Yours sincerely Aron Strecker AS212691 PS: Bei der angehängten asc Datei handelt es sich um mein OpenPGP Zertifikat. Dies wird verwendet um per verschlüsselter E-Mail zu kommunizieren. Am 04.04.26 um 14:58 schrieb address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net: > Welcome to the "address-policy-wg" mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your message to: > > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > You can unsubscribe or make adjustments to your options via email by > sending a message to: > > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > with the word 'help' in the subject or body (don't include the > quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You will > need your password to change your options, but for security purposes, > this password is not included here. If you have forgotten your > password you will need to reset it via the web UI. >

1 0

Nominations Open: New Address Policy WG Co-Chair Sought
by Leo Vegoda 31 Mar '26

31 Mar '26

Dear Address Policy Working Group, You can now nominate yourself as a potential co-chair for the Address Policy WG. You do this by writing to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net with your name and your affiliation. Please do not self-nominate on this list. I am not seeking reselection, so we need a new co-chair. Send your nomination to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net by 15 March. We will publish the list of candidates on 23 March. The candidates may then introduce themselves to the list. The Working Group will make its selection during the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 92 in Edinburgh. If you are interested in serving as a co-chair of this Working Group, you are welcome to speak to Alex, Franziska, or me, to learn what we do off-list. Mirjam and Anna, as RIPE Chair and Vice Chair are also happy to answer any questions you have. And, you can also seek input from RIPE NCC staff and previous co-chairs. Our selection process is documented here: https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-sele… You can also read the Job Description here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692/ A RIPE Working Group Chair Training course is available at the RIPE NCC Academy: https://academy.ripe.net/enrol/index.php?id=16 Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the co-chairs

3 3