[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hph at oslo.net
Wed Apr 20 10:17:20 CEST 2016
On 20/04/16 08:37, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > I think there is no confusion. > section 5.3 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 Yes - I agree that there should be no confusion on the current policy text. I commented on Remcos statement: On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanmook at gmail.com wrote: > This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it > was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do > with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start > allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a > single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. And as far as I has been able to establish it was not that clear - to me - from the text in the original proposal. So while it is clear today - it was not clear to me that it was "from day one" - as Remco stated. As far as I can see the language you refer to was introduced in RIPE 530 on 21 Oct 2011. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-530 The reason I point out this is that we should not use the past as an argument for the future - but have an open discussion on whats best for the future. And if we refer to the past it should > > [...] > 5.3 Address Recycling > Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by > the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. > This section only applies to address space that is returned to the > RIPE NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by > the RIPE NCC itself. > [...] > > What is you understanding of "not be returned to the IANA but > re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself" ? Address space recovered by the RIPE NCC and not returned to IANA. The other two categories is address space from IANA and the last /8. My understanding is that the current practice under curent policy is to threat all 3 categories the same. From RIPE 530 on 21 Oct 21 going forward. Hans Petter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160420/055947b4/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]