What changed
No policy evolution or substantive change can be established from the supplied verified facts because the policy chronology is empty and no proposal versions, milestones, implementation records, or other change evidence were provided.
RIPE NCC · RIR Watchdog
Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.
Source facts
Who actually shaped the debate?
BTW Analysis
No policy evolution or substantive change can be established from the supplied verified facts because the policy chronology is empty and no proposal versions, milestones, implementation records, or other change evidence were provided.
The subject of the debate cannot be determined from the supplied record. There are no verified messages, participant stance timelines, arguments, objections, or responses from which to identify the underlying policy dispute.
Neither a discussion process nor a decision outcome is established. The verified snapshot records zero messages, zero participants, zero formal actors, zero active days, and no stance activity, while no consensus determination, acceptance, rejection, withdrawal, or implementation record was supplied. Zero observed activity is not evidence of any particular disposition.
Participation concentration is not meaningfully measurable in this snapshot. The top-1, top-5, and top-10 message shares, HHI, and effective participant count are all zero because the underlying message and participant counts are zero; these values demonstrate neither broad participation nor concentration. No 50% or 80% participation core is observable.
No deliberative, agenda-setting, procedural, or decision chokepoint can be identified from the supplied facts. The absence of recorded participants and formal actors cannot establish whether authority was concentrated, exercised through an unmeasured channel, or absent from the source revision.
Exhaustion trigger based on a /22 equivalent · Version 1 starts the waiting list when a single /22 can no longer be allocated. Version 2 instead uses the point at which an equivalent of a /22 can no longer be allocated, while retaining the preceding section's ability to assemble that total from more than one block. This distinguishes exhaustion of a contiguous /22 from exhaustion of the aggregate amount available for an allocation. Both versions then use a /24 waiting-list allocation size.
In case an allocation of a single /22 as per clause 1 can no longer be made, the RIPE NCC will start allocating IPv4 resources based on a first-come-first-serve waiting list.Source facts ↗
Once an equivalent of a /22 can no longer be allocated, the RIPE NCC will start allocating IPv4 resources based on a first-come-first-served waiting list.Source facts ↗
Small-fragment holding rule before the waiting list · Version 2 keeps section 5.1 and adds an explicit rule holding blocks smaller than /24 until missing fragments are recovered. Version 1 instead stops the ordinary allocation phase when a single /22 cannot be supplied; its stated rationale avoids handing an LIR fragmented blocks. The new /24 floor accompanies the move to a /22-equivalent exhaustion trigger. Both drafts separately retain a holding rule for fragments below the allocation size in the waiting-list phase.
To prevent allocating the last /22s from multiple smaller fragments, this proposal starts the waiting list scheme as soon as no contiguous /22 can be allocated anymore. This prevents LIRs from receiving fragmented blocks (which they would need to announce separately in the BGP routing table).Source facts ↗
Keep existing text of 5.1 and add: All address blocks smaller than a /24 will be held by the RIPE NCC and are declared unallocatable until the missing fragments are received/recovered by the RIPE NCC.Source facts ↗
Waiting-list assignment confirmation and contiguous block wording · Version 2 omits the separate sentence in version 1's waiting-list section requiring the LIR to confirm that it will make assignments from the allocation. It also explicitly says that, if a single /24 cannot be supplied, allocation waits until contiguous /24s are available again. The omission is specific to this proposed waiting-list wording; it does not demonstrate that all assignment obligations elsewhere in the policy disappear.
Once this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded an LIR can not request any further IPv4 resources under this policy. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. In case an allocation of a single /24 as per clause 1 can no longer be made, no allocation is to be made until the RIPE NCC recovers enough address space to allocate contiguous allocations again.Source facts ↗
If this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded, an LIR cannot request an IPv4 allocation under this policy. In case an allocation of a single /24 as per clause 1 can no longer be made, no allocation is to be made until the RIPE NCC recovers enough address space to allocate contiguous /24 allocations again.Source facts ↗
Narrower declared scope of the second draft · Version 2 explicitly narrows the proposal's stated focus to creating a /24 waiting list after the existing allocation policy can no longer operate, and says the other proposed changes have been removed. Version 1's summary had also described removing the special treatment of the 14 September 2012 date. This is a change in the authors' explanation of scope: version 1's operative text already contained a /22 phase, so its summary should not be read as an immediate /24-only rule.
This policy proposal changes the allocation size to a /24, and because the LIRs that have existed since before 14 September 2012 (the day the main RIPE NCC IPv4 pool ran out) have had plenty of time to request their /22, this policy proposal also removes that "special" date from the policy text and treats all IPv4 allocations equally.Source facts ↗
Version 2 changes the focus of the proposal, looking only at creating a waiting list based on an allocation size of /24 after the current policy no longer works. All other changes have been removed from this proposal and the proposal name has been changed accordingly.Source facts ↗
Source coverage is incomplete.
Partial
Earliest captured: Jun 30, 1992
Latest captured: Oct 11, 2026