You are here: Home > Participate > Policy Development > Archived Policy Proposals

Archived Policy Proposals

The policy proposals on this page have been archived. You can see at a glance if they were accepted and adopted by the RIPE community or withdrawn at any stage.

Name Status Proposal Number Working Group Date Archived
80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup
2010-04 Address Policy Working Group October 2010
Summary: This proposal is to solve the ambiguity in the current wording of the IPv4 Allocation Policy (ripe-492) regarding the "80% utilisation" rule.
Global Policy State in RIPE PDP
2010-03 Address Policy Working Group July 2010
Summary: This proposal would have modified the RIPE Policy Development Process to create a new state that is specific to global policies. This state was "Accepted pending consensus in other RIR communities." This would have allowed a global policy to be further discussed in the event that modifications are made in other RIR communities after acceptance in RIPE

Reason for Withdrawal: Proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 60.
Allocations from the last /8
2010-02 Address Policy Working Group January 2011
Summary: This proposal described how the RIPE NCC should distribute address space from its last /8 worth of IPv4 address space.
Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies
2010-01 Address Policy Working Group August 2011
Summary: This proposal expands the RIPE NCC's ability to assign number resources for temporary purposes and allows the RIPE NCC to reserve pools of IP addresses and Autonomous System (AS) Numbers, which can be used by the RIPE NCC to make temporary direct assignments to End Users.
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs
2009-08 Address Policy Working Group September 2009
Summary:This proposal is to allow LIRs to receive IPv6 PI assignments in addition to an IPv6 allocation.
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries
2009-07 Address Policy Working Group September 2009

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.

Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy
2009-06 Address Policy Working Group September 2009
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.
Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs
2009-05 Address Policy Working Group May 2009
Summary: This was a proposal to allow an LIR operating separate networks in unconnected geographical areas to receive multiple /32 IPv6 allocations.

Reason for Withdrawal:
The proposer, together with the Working Group Chairs, decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it as it is written.
IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment
2009-04 Address Policy Working Group April 2010
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 RFC 5211 are met.

Reason for Withdrawal: Authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see 2010-02).
Run Out Fairly
2009-03 Address Policy Working Group December 2009

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.