Summary

  • RIPE proposal 2026-03 would add explicit audit and LIR-closure sections to the IPv6 policy and name the RIPE NCC Audit Activity document.
  • The proposed audit and closure wording already appears in RIPE’s IPv4 policy; member-account terms already require audit cooperation and describe suspension and deregistration procedures.
  • The proposal remains open for discussion through 17 November 2026. No new wording has taken effect.

RIPE has found a missing chapter in its IPv6 rulebook. The audit machinery is not new; the sign on the door is.

Proposal 2026-03, published on 19 October, is open for discussion until 17 November. It would rename the document “IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region”, state that it applies to RIPE NCC and local Internet registries in that region, and add sections 9 and 10: “Audit” and “Closing an LIR by the RIPE NCC”. The proposal affects RIPE-738, the current IPv6 policy. It is a draft, not an adopted rule. RIPE proposal 2026-03 · RIPE-738

The proposed audit section points readers to the RIPE NCC Audit Activity document. Its companion closure section lists three grounds: unpaid amounts owed to RIPE NCC, an LIR that cannot be contacted for a significant period, and consistent violations of RIPE community policy. It says RIPE NCC takes responsibility for the address space held by a closing LIR. Those are consequential words, but they are not a surprise import from a new sanctions manual. The same audit and closure provisions already sit in sections 8 and 9 of RIPE’s IPv4 policy, RIPE-804. The IPv6 draft is aligning the signposts. RIPE-804

The proposed text also leaves the central language of IPv6 section 4.1 in place: globally unique IPv6 space is licensed for use, not owned; renewal is generally automatic when the holder makes a good-faith effort to meet the conditions; and RIPE reserves the right not to renew when the resource is not used as intended or obligations are not met in good faith. A renewal is assessed under the policy then in force. Proposal 2026-03 does not rewrite that bargain. Its stated task is to make the post-provisioning framework easier to locate and to align the IPv6 document with its IPv4 counterpart.

The member agreement already connects policy to operations. Clause 3.5 requires members to follow RIPE policies and procedural documents. Clause 3.6 requires complete, current and accurate service information and cooperation with audits. Clause 3.8 points to the closure and deregistration procedure, under which service suspension and resource deregistration may follow specified non-compliance. RIPE-858, published in May 2026, sets out those procedures, including notice, response and resource-handling steps. The proposed policy section would make this chain visible from the IPv6 policy itself: policy, audit procedure, account terms and closure process. LIR Account Agreement · RIPE-858

That is a useful distinction for an operator. An IPv6 policy page describes the conditions under which resources are allocated and maintained. The agreement governs the member’s relationship with RIPE NCC, while the audit and closure documents explain how checks and procedures run. When those documents are spread across a shelf of links, the rules can be formally present and practically hard to find.

A heading that points to the procedure is small editorial work with real operational value: compliance teams can map resource records, contacts, billing and evidence to the relevant process before a routine check or a dispute makes the map urgent.

The proposal’s title and scope change deserve their own reading. RIPE-738’s existing abstract describes a policy developed through discussion among APNIC, ARIN and RIPE. The proposed title and added scope sentence locate this version in the RIPE NCC service region. That makes the operational audience easier to identify; it also means readers should compare the new text line by line rather than treating the draft as a cosmetic heading change. The unchanged shared history of IPv6 policy and the new region-specific application statement are both in the text.

The process still has work to do. Under the RIPE Policy Development Process, a discussion phase lasts at least four weeks. After it ends, the proposer and working-group chair decide whether the draft moves to review; the review and concluding phases then give the community further chances to comment before any implementation. The proposal page lists no opposing arguments yet, but the discussion window is open. “None” in a draft rationale is a snapshot, not a vote. RIPE Policy Development Process, RIPE-781

For now, an LIR should read the proposal as a filing improvement with operational consequences: make the procedure easier to find, keep the existing obligations legible, and spell out which regional policy document is being applied. The useful test for the discussion is whether the final text gives resource holders a clearer path from a policy clause to the exact audit and closure steps that govern their account. The next fact that would change this assessment is a revised proposal or RIPE NCC impact analysis; neither is present in the version published on 19 October.

Sources: Proposal 2026-03; IPv6 policy, RIPE-738; IPv4 policy, RIPE-804; RIPE NCC Audit Activity; LIR Account Agreement; Closure procedure, RIPE-858; Policy Development Process, RIPE-781.