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
The proposal would have removed justification for a first ASN while retaining conditions for additional ASNs. Version 1.0 was published on 6 May 2025; version 2.0, on 16 October 2025, clarified routing-policy documentation, use and review conditions for additional ASNs. The proposal was withdrawn on 6 July 2026, so these proposed changes are not evidence of implementation.
The draft discussion concerned the boundary between easier access and verifiable routing needs: whether multihoming was an enforceable requirement, how additional ASNs should be justified, and what operational evidence could support those rules. Requests for data and wording changes were not necessarily opposition to simpler access.
The 32 linked messages are a draft discussion from 29 March to 2 April 2025, preceding both published versions. They cannot be counted as votes on the October text or as an explanation for the July 2026 withdrawal. Withdrawal is a procedural outcome, not evidence that the proposal became policy.
Eight people contributed the 32 messages. The five most frequent contributors accounted for 84.4% of messages. That concentration describes who spoke most, not who represented all affected operators or had authority to decide the outcome.
Had the proposal been adopted, the first-ASN justification checkpoint would have been removed while review remained for additional ASNs. The trade-off was less friction at entry against continued scrutiny of subsequent requests. Withdrawal means this shift in administrative discretion cannot be reported as an observed change.
General ASN requirements separated from additional-ASN requests · Version 2 places a unique external routing policy, a RIPE Database routing-policy entry and third-party peering under a general ASNs are required to heading, then separately lists what an additional-ASN applicant must provide. The first ASN remains available without application justification. That does not mean the revised operative text exempts the first ASN from every operational requirement, despite the broader wording retained in the rationale.
Requirements for additional ASNs are: A unique external routing policy for the Autonomous System must be provided. The uniqueness of the routing policy includes the announced prefixes. The Autonomous System must peer with a third party.Source facts ↗
Have a unique external routing policy. The uniqueness of the routing policy includes the announced prefixes. Have a routing policy defined in the RIPE Database. Peer with a third party.Source facts ↗
Routing-policy registration and off-GRT documentation · The old wording requests a routing policy for an ASN intended to appear in the global routing table and recommends RPSL. Version 2 instead requires a policy defined in the RIPE Database in the general ASN conditions and omits the explicit RPSL recommendation. Documentation of a non-visible purpose remains required for an ASN used outside the global routing table.
When requesting an AS Number to be visible in the Global Routing Table (GRT), the routing policy of the Autonomous System must be provided. The new unique routing policy should be defined in RPSL language, as used in the RIPE Database.Source facts ↗
Have a routing policy defined in the RIPE Database. Peer with a third party. In case the ASN is used for a purpose that is not visible in the GRT, documentation on the non-visible purpose (e.g., a reference to the assigned IXP LAN prefixes) must be provided.Source facts ↗
Six-month use expectation and intermittent use · Version 2 replaces the mandatory fulfilment of approved application criteria within six months with a should-be-in-use expectation over the same period. It describes intermittent research, measurement and event uses as subject to RIPE NCC discretion and still requires a benefit statement. The interval is unchanged, while the wording and the explicit discretion differ.
Reasonable periodic use cases may be allowed. A benefit statement for such must be provided. The requester must fulfil the criteria for which the application was approved within six months after the ASN is issued.Source facts ↗
ASNs should be in use within six months after the ASN is issued. Intermittent usage such as research, measurements, events, etc. may be allowed at the discretion of the RIPE NCC. A benefit statement for such usage must be provided.Source facts ↗
Justification for leaving existing ASNs inactive · Version 2 explicitly requires an additional-ASN requester to explain why inactive existing ASNs cannot be used. Approval may still depend on compliance by existing ASNs, now expressly at RIPE NCC discretion; the old separate reference to up-to-date documentation in that approval sentence is removed.
Approval of an additional ASN may depend on the fulfilment of criteria and up-to-date documentation for existing ASNs.Source facts ↗
A reason for why inactive existing ASNs cannot be used. Approval of an additional ASN may depend on the fulfilment of ASN requirements for existing ASNs, at the discretion of the RIPE NCC.Source facts ↗
Detailed verification procedure omitted · Version 2 omits the old instructions to verify visible ASNs through the global routing table, request operational proof for off-table ASNs, and treat insufficient proof as failure. It retains discretion over approval based on existing ASN requirements. The omission changes the prescribed verification detail; it does not establish that RIPE NCC can no longer check compliance.
In case of an ASN visible in the GRT, RIPE NCC verifies that the ASN fulfils the criteria by checking the GRT. In case of an off-GRT ASN, RIPE NCC may request operational proof that the criteria are fulfilled. Failing to provide sufficient proof is considered as not fulfilling the criteria.Source facts ↗
Approval of an additional ASN may depend on the fulfilment of ASN requirements for existing ASNs, at the discretion of the RIPE NCC.Source facts ↗
Public discussion
32 Discussion messages · 8 Entities
Source facts ↗Loading
Partial
Earliest captured: Jun 30, 1992
Latest captured: Nov 3, 2026
