[address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department

On 07/04/10 11:18, Nina Hjorth Bargisen wrote:

>> - interpretation 1: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, every *single*
>>   of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR will not get
>>   a new allocation, because the /19 is only at 40%"
>>
>> - interpretation 2: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, the grand total
>>   of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR *will* get 
>>   another allocation, because they have used 88%".
>> Personally, I think that the interpretation according to 5.3 of the
>> IPv4 address policy document ("interpretation 2") is the intention of 
>> the policy.  
> I agree. It may be that some feel that we need to make the policy more
> strict but I strongly feel that the interpretation 2 is the correct
> interpretation of the current policy. I think interpretation 1 is stricter
> than it should be, according to the writing and to what LIR's may
> reasonably expect when they read the policy and judge whether it is suitable
> to make a request or not.

I also agree.

"... may receive an additional allocation when about eighty percent of all the
address space currently allocated to it... "

In this context "address space" is a mass noun (we say 'a /24 of address
space') and it only seems sensible to interpret this as an aggregate. The
presence of 'all' only reinforces this point.



On the separate issue of what the policy should read (as opposed to 'how to
interpret it'):

The fact is rarely do larger LIRs operate as a single business unit or entity,
and so there is greater internal complexity inside the organisation. While some
may choose to operate a single large LIR and business structure others operate
LIRs on a per-country or per-business unit basis. If we are talking about
creating policies to provide address space on an equitable basis it doesn't
seem relevant to consider 'one LIR' vs 'lots of LIRs'. In extremis, someone
starting 100 LIRs to gain a commercial advantage is clearly not a desirable
situation.

Will