Summary

  • Martin Pels and Aleksi Suhonen coauthored RIPE proposal 2014-04, which removed the IPv6 allocation prerequisite for an LIR's one-time IPv4 /22 from the final /8.
  • RIPE accepted the proposal on 4 March 2015 and announced implementation on 19 March. The other final-/8 eligibility conditions stayed in place.

A network with IPv6, but the wrong piece of paper

Picture an operator holding an IPv6 Provider Independent assignment. The network has IPv6 space. It wants the one-time IPv4 /22 available to a Local Internet Registry from RIPE NCC's last /8. The form asks whether it has received an IPv6 allocation. Its PI assignment does not tick that box. To qualify, the operator may have to request a different IPv6 allocation and give back the PI assignment it already uses. The paperwork has begun managing the network.

That awkward case sits in the 2014-04 proposal signed by Aleksi Suhonen and Martin Pels, then listed with AMS-IX. The old rule tied scarce IPv4 to a prior IPv6 allocation from RIPE NCC or an upstream LIR. Its aim was to encourage the move to IPv6. The authors pointed to a gap between receiving an allocation and deploying the protocol. A registry can count the former; packets prove the latter.

Pels took the issue into the Address Policy Working Group. The RIPE 68 minutes record him presenting an earlier attempt to relax the condition, followed by questions about which sorts of IPv6 holdings should qualify. A narrower fix invited a fresh argument over the acceptable label on the receipt. The eventual version removed the IPv6 prerequisite altogether. The proposal says earlier wording had failed to reach consensus.

At RIPE 69, the minutes record a participant describing the old requirement as four extra clicks to request an IPv6 allocation. That was a meeting-room description, not a stopwatch result. The concern was real: deleting a mandatory IPv6 line from an IPv4 rule might look like retreat. RIPE NCC's impact analysis anticipated fewer IPv6 allocation requests and possible extra outreach to explain the decision. The proposal also acknowledged that removing a barrier could slightly hasten IPv4 depletion. Those were contemporary expectations, not a measured verdict on deployment.

Pels answered the outreach point in a December 2014 message: RIPE NCC could still tell /22 applicants about IPv6. The conversation with an applicant did not need a compulsory allocation as its entrance fee. The distinction is simple, and useful: education can happen at the counter without turning an unrelated receipt into an eligibility test.

The proposal record dates acceptance to 4 March 2015. RIPE NCC's implementation notice followed on 19 March: members could request their one-time final-/8 IPv4 /22 without already holding an IPv6 allocation. This is the historical rule change; today's IPv4 supply belongs to a different chapter.

Original records