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

2024.01 Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy - Next steps
by Franziska Lichtblau (rhalina) 25 Mar '26

25 Mar '26

Dear Address Policy WG, The Discussion Phase for Version 2 of policy proposal 2024-01 ended on 28 November 2025. The feedback received during this phase was limited. We have discussed the situation with Tobias, who has confirmed the intention to continue with the proposal. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), at the end of the Discussion Phase the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, decides whether the proposal will move to the next phase or be withdrawn. The WG Chairs and the proposer have agreed to proceed. If you have not yet shared your view on this proposal, we encourage you to do so now. The limited feedback during the Discussion Phase on v2 of 2024.01 means that the community's feedback is particularly valuable right now. Even a brief statement of support, opposition, or neutrality helps us as WG Chairs assess the situation. You can find the proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-01/2/ Kind regards, Alex, Franziska, Leo Address Policy Working Group Chairs

5 4

Heads up: New discussion phase for 2024.01 upcoming
by Franziska Lichtblau 25 Mar '26

25 Mar '26

Dear Address Policy WG, To correctly follow the PDP and incorporate your comments we need to start a new discussion phase. There will be a formal announcement soon and we'd be grateful if you could resend comments made in the last days during that period. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kind regards, Alex, Franziska, Leo Address Policy Working Group Chairs

1 0

Verification of Legacy Resource Holders without Contract
by Marco Schmidt 20 Mar '26

20 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 91, I presented the idea that the RIPE NCC would contact the roughly 1,600 legacy resource holders who currently have no contractual relationship with either the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. [1] While the policy “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders” [2] does not require a contractual relationship to be in place, this creates challenges in terms of data accuracy. For many of these resources, the holdership and contact details are outdated, unclear, or missing. This makes it difficult to contact the resource holder and process updates, and increases the risk of disputes or misuse. To address this, we will soon begin contacting legacy resource holders based on the available registration information. Once we have verified their status, we will add a co-maintained organisation object to their resources in the RIPE Database. This will clearly identify the resource holder and ensure that any future updates involve the RIPE NCC and are similarly verified. This step will improve registration accuracy, reduce the risk of misuse, and bring these resources closer in line with how other resources are maintained in the RIPE Database. We aim to complete this activity by October 2026. In cases where we are unable to verify holdership , we will add an organisation object with an anonymised name to indicate that this is currently unverified. This can be updated later at any time once verification becomes possible. Legacy resource holders without a contract who would like to prioritise verification can contact us at legacy(a)ripe.net. We will update you on the progress of this work in the coming months. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC [1] https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/40/FJ7YSH/ [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/

2 2

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