Anyone in the RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) community can
suggest a new policy or a change to an existing policy. You do not have
to be a member of the RIPE NCC.
RIPE is a collaborative forum open to anyone who is interested in wide
area IP networks. There are no membership requirements for participation
in RIPE. Its activities are performed on a voluntary basis and decisions
are made by consensus.
The RIPE NCC provides administrative support for RIPE. One of the jobs
that the RIPE NCC does is to look after the Policy
Development Process. The RIPE NCC manages the process, but all input
comes from the RIPE community. The RIPE NCC does not make policies, however
it is responsible for making sure that they are applied in its service
region.
Name
 |
Number
|
Submission
Date |
Current
Phase |
Phase
Ends/Ended |
Latest Status |
Working Group |
|
| PI Assignment Size |
2006-05 |
29 August 2006 |
Review |
14 March 2007 |
Awaiting Decision from WG Chairs
|
|
| Summary: This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a multihoming End User. |
| Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data |
2008-04 |
29 April 2008 |
Discussion |
27 May 2008 |
Awaiting Decision from Proposers
|
|
| Summary: This is a proposal to introduce a new registry that augments IRR data
with the formally verifiable trust model of the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) and provide ISPs with the tools to generate
an overlay to the IRR which is much more strongly trustable. |
| Use of Final /8 |
2008-06 |
15 October 2008 |
Discussion |
12 November 2008 |
Awaiting Decision from Proposer |
|
| Summary: This proposal describes how RIPE NCC should make allocations from its last /8 worth of address space at the time of total depletion of the IANA free pool. |
| Ensuring Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources |
2008-07 |
15 October 2008 |
Discussion |
1 July 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion |
|
| Summary: This is a proposal to require documentation of all address resources held when assessing a RIPE NCC member's eligibility for further IPv4 address space. |
| Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders |
2008-08 |
16 October 2008 |
Discussion |
13 November 2008 |
Awaiting Decision from Proposer |
|
| Summary: The RIPE NCC plans to deploy a certification service that can be used to secure uniqueness of resources. This proposal lays out guidelines for how LIRs can receive certificates over their Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space holdings and how these certificates should be maintained. |
| Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries |
2009-01 |
19 February 2009 |
Discussion |
19 March 2009 |
Awaiting Decision from Proposer |
|
| Summary: With the depletion of the IANA free pool of IPv4 address space, the current policy regarding the allocation of IPv4 address space to the RIRs will become moot. The RIRs may, according to their individual policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space. This policy provides a mechanism for the RIRs to retro allocate the recovered IPv4 address space to the IANA and provides the IANA the policy by which it can allocate it back to the RIRs on a needs basis. This policy creates a new global pool of IPv4 address space that can be allocated where it is needed on a global basis without a transfer of address space between the RIRs. |
| Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC |
2009-02 |
24 March 2009 |
Concluding |
14 July 2009 |
Last Call |
|
| Summary:
This proposal sets out how the RIPE NCC can allocate/assign resources to itself.
|
| Run Out Fairly |
2009-03 |
7 April 2009 |
Discussion |
5 May 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion |
|
| Summary:
This is a proposal to gradually reduce the allocation and assignment periods in step with the expected life time of the IPv4 unallocated pool in order to address the perception of unfairness once the pool has run out.
The proposal is not intended to stretch the lifetime of the unallocated pool.
The proposal is independent of other proposals to reserve address space for transition purposes and/or new entrants. It can be implemented independently of these.
|
| IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment |
2009-04 |
7 April 2009 |
Discussion |
5 May 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion |
|
| Summary: The last IPv4 /8 that the RIPE NCC will hold is proposed to be dedicated to facilitate deployment of IPv6. Allocations and assignments from this block will be made based on demonstrated need, but the size will be downscaled taking into account existing transition technologies (for example dual-stack lite, NAT464, successors of NAT-PT). The proposed minimum allocation size is to be a /27 for such allocations and assignments.
Allocations and assignments from this block will also be justified by demonstrating that the requirements of the transition plan as specified in RFC5211 are met. |
| Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy |
2009-06 |
26 May 2009 |
Discussion |
23 June 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion
|
|
| Summary: The IPv6 address allocation policy currently contains mandates about
how an allocated address range should be announced into the routing
table. Following discussion at RIPE 58, it is proposed that this is
removed from the address policy as it does not relate to address allocation. |
| Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries |
2009-07 |
27 May 2009 |
Discussion |
24 June 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion
|
|
| Summary: According to the current global policy (ripe-416), IANA will cease to make any distinction between 16 bit and 32-bit only ASN blocks by 31 December 2009, when making allocations to RIRs. This proposal is to extend this date by one year, to 31 December 2010. |
| IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs |
2009-08 |
3 June 2009 |
Discussion |
1 July 2009 |
Initial Community Discussion
|
|
| Summary: This proposal is to allow LIRs to receive IPv6 PI assignments in addition to an IPv6 allocation. |
| |
|
|
|
|