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

Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status
by Tom Fantacone 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Hi All, I'm a bit perplexed about whether or how much this proposal would actually do much to lessen RIPE's workload. Marco wrote: >The Legacy Updates group is similar. Randy is correct, updates of legacy resources under contract between two existing members are typically far below the 360-minute average, but they represent only a small portion of this group. >The longer processing times mainly occur when a new contract must be signed with the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring member, or when only one party has a contractual relationship. In particular, cases where the offering party has no >contract (while the receiving party has or will have one) can take significantly longer, as the RIPE NCC must perform extensive due-diligence checks before the Legacy update can be completed." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that if a legacy holder with no contract transfers space to another legacy holder who wants no contract, as current policy allows, we might expect long processing times since RIPE must, to some degree, vet the recipient for the first time. If this policy were in effect, we have the case where a new contract must be signed by the recipient (no more legacy status), but this also incurs longer processing times, so in this case I don't see any workload savings. Now if, under current policy, a recipient of a legacy transfer with no contract later decided to transfer the space elsewhere, I would expect the initial vetting of the recipient of the first transfer would extend so it wouldn't require RIPE to start from scratch in vetting them as the source of the 2nd transfer. I guess in principle it's possible the RIPE workload would be greater if the same space were being transferred over and over again to different, new, unvetted recipients who would keep the space as legacy. Is this something we could get some statistics on? Are there a significant number of cases where the same legacy space is churned over and over again to different recipients who all need to be vetted by RIPE, or are these just fringe cases? Otherwise, it seems the policy doesn't do much to mitigate the higher "legacy workload". Regarding RPKI and its cost-load, ARIN chose the path of requiring legacy holders to sign a Registration Services Agreement and relinquish legacy status to receive RPKI services. While this incentivizes entities to become ARIN members and reduces the amount of legacy space out there, it also incentivizes legacy holders who wish to remain legacy holders to forego RPKI entirely, reducing RPKI adoption. RIPE chose the path of allowing legacy holders to adopt RPKI without foregoing legacy status, as long as they enter into a contractual agreement with RIPE, generally as a member or via a sponsoring LIR. So they pay the same fees to receive the service as non-legacy holders, but aren't dissuaded by being forced to give up their legacy status. I think the current system strikes the perfect middle-ground in encouraging legacy holders to adopt RPKI and to pay for it. Finally, I agree with Niall's comment that "clarifying" should not be the operative word in the proposal's title. It implies that this policy was RIPE's actual intent when it formulated the rules governing legacy transfers, but I don't think that's the case at all. For these reasons, I'm opposed to the policy as written. Best Regards, Tom Fantacone

2 1

Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status
by Wade, Clara 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

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

17 26

2024-02 New Version Policy Proposal (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
by Angela Dall'Ara 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Dear colleagues,   A new version of RIPE policy proposal 2024-02 "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28" is now available for discussion.  Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 4.0.  The main difference from version 3.0 is that it allows the extension without additional documentation of a single allocation per LIR instead of per Member. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/ As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this six-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 7 November 2025.   Kind regards,   Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

16 23

New Self-Service Form for Ending Sponsorships Now Live
by Marco Schmidt 04 Nov '25

04 Nov '25

Dear colleagues, As announced during the Address Policy session at RIPE 91, we have now deployed a new request form that allows RIPE NCC members to easily stop the sponsorship of Provider Independent (PI) resources (IPv4 PI, IPv6 PI, and AS Numbers). This new form introduces our first true self-service workflow in Registry Services. It enables immediate execution of the request, offers a clearer process, and significantly reduces manual handling. You will find the form in the LIR Portal under the same section previously used to notify the RIPE NCC about changes. Full details are available in this RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/marco_schmidt/automated-self-service-to-end-sp… If your organisation sponsors independent resources, please take a moment to review your current customer agreements and use the new form to notify us of any sponsorships that have ended. Thank you for helping us maintain accurate registry data. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: 2024-02 New Version Policy Proposal (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
by ember 30 Oct '25

30 Oct '25

> If you support this draft of the proposal, please indicate that with a > simple message. It can be a +1 or a 👍. Absolutely in favor of this! +1 from me ~ ember

1 0

Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 161, Issue 9
by Hien Nguyen 30 Oct '25

30 Oct '25

Ekkomagicboy.senju ---------- Forwarded message --------- Từ: <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> Date: 4:53 Th 5, 30 thg 10, 2025 Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 161, Issue 9 To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status (Randy Bush) 2. Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status (Marco Schmidt) 3. Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status (Max Emig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 18:05:53 -0700 From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status To: "Wade, Clara" <clarawad(a)amazon.com> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Message-ID: <m2frb234b2.wl-randy(a)psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 hi clara as usual, i am a bit confused; yes, a low bar. have sympathy; you have been doing this *far* longer than i. CSTFR sez: > it takes staff an average of 75 minutes to process each intra-RIR > transfer ticket, 200 minutes for an inter-RIR or M&A transfer, six > hours for a legacy transfer between parties with contractual > relationships with the RIPE NCC looking at table 7, i think we're comparing "RIPE NCC Region Transfers" with "Legacy Updates," whatever the heck they are. i suspect that they are not inter-member transfers of legacy space. as you were on the CSTF, so i hope you remember what these numbers actually measure and could please whack me with a clue bat. Clara: > legacy status, regardless of whether there is a contractual > relationship or not, need to undergo a more stringent diligence > process for transfers that puts additional burden on the NCC i naïvely assume that the extra diligence of provenance is incurred once when the space is first registered, e.g. when the holder becomes a member or it is acquired by a member. and that cost would be a one time cost. from then on, why is it not just space with a different paint job? if member A transfers legacy space to member B why the heck would it take significantly more effort than if A transfers non-legacy space to B? can someone from the registry comment? similarly if A transfers legacy space to B as non-legacy, does it really require less effort than if B receives it as legacy space? randy, trying to understand what problems we really need to solve ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:16:34 +0100 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>, "Wade, Clara" <clarawad(a)amazon.com> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Message-ID: <f075336f-b51d-46d9-b1c2-da01d4df9341(a)ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Hello Martin, Randy, all Please allow me to provide a bit more context regarding the processing times shown in the report of the Charging Scheme Task Force. First, these figures are averages based on samples and experience in Registration Services. Actual cases may be completed faster, or sometimes significantly slower. Second, the four categories mentioned in the Charging Scheme Task Force report cover a range of scenarios, and this grouping creates some cluster effects that can be confusing. For example, policy transfers of PI resources within the RIPE NCC region can involve: - two members, - a member and a non-member - two non-members. Transfers between two members are usually below the average of 75 minutes, while those involving non-members usually take a bit longer, especially when the receiving party is new to the RIPE NCC and additional checks are required. The Legacy Updates group is similar. Randy is correct, updates of legacy resources under contract between two existing members are typically far below the 360-minute average, but they represent only a small portion of this group. The longer processing times mainly occur when a new contract must be signed with the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring member, or when only one party has a contractual relationship. In particular, cases where the offering party has no contract (while the receiving party has or will have one) can take significantly longer, as the RIPE NCC must perform extensive due-diligence checks before the Legacy update can be completed. I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC On 29/10/2025 02:05, Randy Bush wrote: > hi clara > > as usual, i am a bit confused; yes, a low bar. have sympathy; you have > been doing this *far* longer than i. > > CSTFR sez: >> it takes staff an average of 75 minutes to process each intra-RIR >> transfer ticket, 200 minutes for an inter-RIR or M&A transfer, six >> hours for a legacy transfer between parties with contractual >> relationships with the RIPE NCC > looking at table 7, i think we're comparing "RIPE NCC Region Transfers" > with "Legacy Updates," whatever the heck they are. i suspect that they > are not inter-member transfers of legacy space. as you were on the > CSTF, so i hope you remember what these numbers actually measure and > could please whack me with a clue bat. > > Clara: >> legacy status, regardless of whether there is a contractual >> relationship or not, need to undergo a more stringent diligence >> process for transfers that puts additional burden on the NCC > i naïvely assume that the extra diligence of provenance is incurred once > when the space is first registered, e.g. when the holder becomes a > member or it is acquired by a member. and that cost would be a one time > cost. from then on, why is it not just space with a different paint > job? > > if member A transfers legacy space to member B why the heck would it > take significantly more effort than if A transfers non-legacy space to > B? can someone from the registry comment? > > similarly if A transfers legacy space to B as non-legacy, does it > really require less effort than if B receives it as legacy space? > > randy, trying to understand what problems we really need to solve > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ > 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:53:21 +0100 From: "Max Emig" <ripe(a)emigm.ax> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status To: Wade, Clara <clarawad(a)amazon.com> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, peter.hessler(a)zayo.com <peter.hessler(a)zayo.com> Message-ID: <1ad4e135-4e93-0f0f-5b84-a957a86056f0(a)emigm.ax> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_=-_OpenGroupware_ org_NGMime-66-1761774801.073449-1------" 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> 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: * “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. * “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: * RIPE registration services fees. * The 24-month transfer lock that was introduced by this working group to prevent flipping of scarce resources. * 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

1 0

Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 161, Issue 11
by Wade, Clara 30 Oct '25

30 Oct '25

Hi Dominik, > I believe changing the policy will lead to exactly more of 1 - change won't be registered with the NCC in order for the resource not to lose its legacy status. This behavior is an anti-pattern and it also goes explicitly against the RIPE NCC process for legacy resource transfers. 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. For clarity, this policy does not aim to affect transfers among LIRs within the same member account - understanding this would be effectively like M&A/organization restructure cases, which we understand can happen among higher ed and research entities that tend to be legacy resource holders too. The NCC would clarify this in the impact analysis report. > This is significant especially that these changes don't have to be registered in order to be able to use the space - i.e. be creating route objects in alternate DBs. This too is an anti-pattern we aim to prevent and it hinders RPKI adoption. > For that reason I oppose the proposal. If this is more of "extra work required" type of issue - then let's solve it by putting the correct price tag on it. This portion will be addressed by the proposed charging scheme models that the NCC is working on presenting soon, following the Charging Scheme Task Force report. However, incentives will not be enough to stop certain actors from exploiting this loophole in RIPE policy. Thank you, Clara On 10/30/25, 9:43 AM, "address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net>" <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net>> wrote: 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. Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net> You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status (Dominik Nowacki) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:41:09 +0000 From: Dominik Nowacki <dominik(a)clouvider.co.uk <mailto:dominik@clouvider.co.uk>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status 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>> Message-ID: <DB9PR10MB49710786C4D9F9386DDD1D89F2FBA(a)DB9PR10MB4971.EURP <mailto:DB9PR10MB49710786C4D9F9386DDD1D89F2FBA@DB9PR10MB4971.EURP> RD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB9PR10MB497107 86C4D9F9386DDD1D89F2FBADB9PR10MB4971EURP_" Dear Colleagues, I agree with Max. We don't quite have a horse in this race. Clouvider has 1x legacy subnet and is a member of the RIPE NCC regardless. We use it pretty much in the same way as if it was a PA. Clara, > 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. I believe changing the policy will lead to exactly more of 1 - change won't be registered with the NCC in order for the resource not to loose its legacy status. This is significant especially that these changes don't have to be registered in order to be able to use the space - i.e. be creating route objects in alternate DBs. For that reason I oppose the proposal. If this is more of "extra work required" type of issue - then let's solve it by putting the correct price tag on it. Kind Regards, Dominik ________________________________ From: Wade, Clara via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> Sent: 30 October 2025 14:29 To: Max Emig <ripe(a)emigm.ax <mailto:ripe@emigm.ax>> 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: [address-policy-wg] Re: Early Feedback Requested on Upcoming Policy Proposal: Clarifying the non-transferability of legacy status 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 -------------- next part -------------- A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14864 bytes Desc: not available ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer ----- 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://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/> 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://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/> ------------------------------ End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 161, Issue 11 **************************************************

1 0

2024-01 Discussion Phase (Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy)
by Angela Dall'Ara 30 Oct '25

30 Oct '25

Dear colleagues,   A new version of RIPE policy proposal 2024-01 "Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion.   Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0.  The main difference from version 1.0 is that the definition of 'End Site' has been removed along with the re-evaluation of addressing needs when requesting an additional or larger assignment. The authors made this version more concise and readable, and moved Purposes and Considerations under the Motivation section. 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 six-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 28 November 2025.   Kind regards,   Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

my last comment in the Q&A
by jordi.palet＠consulintel.es 23 Oct '25

23 Oct '25

I’ve one comment in the Q&A before the session was closed: From experience: It is true that being more generic in policy text will be better (and it is reflected in the analysis impact), but some times this works clearly against the needs of the community, because then the NCC has too strict interpretations of the text. We have seen this in the IPv6 allocation several times! So properly balancing it is the difficulty. I then realized a mistake on my text … and corrected part of it: "a small mistake in my previous text. what I wanted to say about analysis impacts is that sometimes they work against being generic in the policy text" By the way, it will be good that before closing the session, specially when there is time, we pay attention to the Q&A, otherwise, remote participation is not efficient. This is the third time that I’ve this issue in RIPE meetings ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

draft proposal for resolving the sub-assignment issues with RFC9663 and RFC8273
by jordi.palet＠consulintel.es 23 Oct '25

23 Oct '25

Hi all, As I’ve already indicated this morning, a few days ago I already worked a draft for resolving those issues. I commented it in the IETF v6ops list when somebody raised the problem there. A bit of history. This is not new. The problem was clear when we had the RFC8273 and for this reason, I objected to the previous assignment definition change, and not being acknowledge, I proposed the policy 2018-02 (https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2018-02/) So refreshing that now will be in the line of: Summary: This proposal aims to clarify the definition of "Assign" in RIPE-738 (section 2.6). The proposal solves the inconsistencies raised during community discussions on the policy proposal 2016-04, “IPv6 Sub-Assignment Clarification” where the RIPE NCC’s understanding, as explained in the impact analysis, didn’t match with the current policy text. The policy text says “Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)”, while the impact analysis said “as long as the subnet size does not exceed a /64”. In addition to cases where a /64 is used for a point-to-point link, VPNs and similar, where typically a single address is used on the “customer side” (in addition to the one used at the LIR side), the IETF has several ways to assign unique /64 prefix per interface/host (RFC 8273, RFC 9663) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64). Another case involves a third party contracted by the End User to provide services in their network that require the deployment of other devices, servers, network equipment, etc. For example, a security surveillance system may involve the contractor providing their own cameras, recording system, even their own firewall and/or router for a dedicated VPN. In many cases, this surveillance system would need to use the addressing space of the End User. We need to understand that the concept of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), even in enterprise networks, universities, etc., doesn't limit the number of addresses that a single device may decide to use. In fact, previous standards already allow this because a single device can get an IPv6 address by means of SLAAC, another with DHCPv6, and one more using privacy addresses. The actual policy text will not allow this, while the RIPE NCC’s understanding seems to support it. Current Policy Text:2.6. Assign To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties. New Policy text:2.6. Assign To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment and is prohibited under this policy. Rationale: a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal This proposal will avoid the above-mentioned discrepancies, align the policy with standards and simplify RIPE NCC clarifications and avoid misunderstandings. The proposal already continue prohibiting the use of PI for ISP services. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal None foreseen beyond the impact analysis of 2016-04, which is still very relevant here. Inputs welcome! Also if anyone want to join the proposal, etc., etc, please let me know. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0