RIPE NCC · Vigilancia de RIR
Consulta aquí el historial de cada propuesta: qué cambió, por qué fue relevante, quién defendió cada postura, cómo evolucionaron las posiciones, qué se decidió y dónde persisten las lagunas en la evidencia.
Hechos con fuentes
¿Quiénes marcaron realmente el debate?
Análisis de BTW
No puede establecerse ningún cambio de política, texto, postura, influencia o estado procedimental a partir de los hechos suministrados. La cronología y las líneas temporales de postura están vacías, por lo que la ausencia de cambios observables no equivale a demostrar que no existieron cambios fuera del conjunto capturado.
No puede determinarse el objeto sustantivo real del debate porque no hay intervenciones, argumentos, posturas ni hitos verificables. Cualquier caracterización temática, institucional, económica o procedimental iría más allá de la evidencia suministrada.
El conjunto verificado no contiene discusión observable ni una decisión formal identificable: registra cero mensajes, cero días activos, cero participantes y ninguna cronología. Esto describe únicamente la instantánea suministrada y no demuestra que históricamente no hubiera debate, aprobación, rechazo, abandono o retiro.
No puede calificarse la participación como amplia, concentrada o dominada por determinados actores. Las cuotas top-1, top-5 y top-10, el HHI, los núcleos del 50 % y 80 % y el número efectivo de participantes son cero porque también hay cero mensajes y cero participantes; por tanto, esos valores no prueban desconcentración ni equilibrio de poder.
No puede identificarse un cuello de botella sustantivo o procedimental dentro del proceso de política. El principal cuello de botella probatorio es la ausencia de una cronología verificable, mensajes, posturas y registro de decisión; sin esos elementos no es posible determinar dónde, cómo ni por quién se limitó o resolvió el proceso.
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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).Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
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.Hechos con fuentes ↗
La cobertura de la fuente está incompleta.
Parcial
Primera captura: 30 jun 1992
Última captura: 11 oct 2026