Policy Proposals

2005-03: IPv6 Initial Allocation. The proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". The proposed change is to remove "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years" and to remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size.

2005-11: Multicast Monitoring on RIPE NCC Test Traffic Boxes. This proposal is to add functionality to the Test Traffic Measurement (TTM) service that allows for testing of multicast-capable networks.

2005-10: Consumer Broadband Monitoring Feasibility. This is a proposal to have the RIPE NCC, as a neutral body, develop a way of measuring performance for consumer broadband networks. The proposal requests funding for a limited deployment prototype with the purpose of assessing industry and consumer acceptance, functional requirements and technical issues.

2005-01: HD-ratio Proposal. The proposal is to change the further allocation criteria for IPv4 as described in ripe-324: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region".

2005-04: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site". There are various terms for "end-site" in the IPv6 allocation and assignment policy and the RFC3177. We need to have a finally definition for "end-site" to establish clear internal assignment policies.

2005-07: Introducing DNSSEC Service to Reverse DNS Trees. To implement DNSSEC, we propose extending the policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region.

2005-06: Proposal to Add Regional Boundaries to Policy Documents. Proposal to mark IPv4 and IPv6 policy documents with a statement indicating that The RIPE NCC assigns Internet number resources located in the RIPE NCC Service Region.

2005-05: This RIPE Policy Proposal was to modify policy document text to reflect full recognition of AfriNIC as a functioning RIR.

2009-06: 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.

2009-03: 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.