RIPE NCC · Veille des RIR
Commencez ici pour consulter l’historique, proposition par proposition : ce qui a changé, pourquoi cela comptait, qui a défendu quoi, comment les positions ont évolué, ce qui a été décidé et quelles lacunes subsistent dans les preuves.
Faits sourcés
Qui a réellement façonné le débat ?
Analyse BTW
La proposition aurait supprimé la justification du premier ASN tout en maintenant des conditions pour les ASN supplémentaires. La version 1.0 a été publiée le 6 mai 2025 ; celle du 16 octobre 2025 précisait la documentation des politiques de routage, l'utilisation et l'examen des ASN supplémentaires. Le retrait du 6 juillet 2026 ne permet pas de présenter ces changements proposés comme des règles appliquées.
Le débat portait sur l'équilibre entre un accès plus simple et des besoins de routage vérifiables : l'exigence de multihébergement était-elle applicable, comment justifier les ASN supplémentaires et quelles données opérationnelles étayaient ces règles ? Demander des données ou une autre formulation ne signifiait pas nécessairement s'opposer à la simplification.
Les 32 messages associés concernent le projet discuté du 29 mars au 2 avril 2025, avant les deux versions publiées. Ils ne constituent ni un vote sur le texte d'octobre ni une explication du retrait de juillet 2026. Ce retrait est une issue procédurale, pas une preuve d'adoption.
Huit personnes ont rédigé les 32 messages ; les cinq plus actives en représentent 84,4 %. Cela décrit la répartition de la parole, sans établir la représentativité de tous les opérateurs concernés ni un pouvoir de décision.
En cas d'adoption, la justification du premier ASN aurait disparu, tandis que les demandes supplémentaires seraient restées examinées. Le compromis visait à réduire les obstacles à l'entrée sans renoncer au contrôle des demandes suivantes. Le retrait interdit de décrire ce déplacement du pouvoir d'appréciation comme un fait accompli.
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
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.Faits sourcés ↗
Approval of an additional ASN may depend on the fulfilment of ASN requirements for existing ASNs, at the discretion of the RIPE NCC.Faits sourcés ↗
Débat public
32 Messages de discussion · 8 Entités
Faits sourcés ↗Chargement
Partielle
Première capture: 30 juin 1992
Dernière capture: 3 nov. 2026