Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"

[Janos Zsako <]

>   From leo@localhost Sat Oct 18 21:41:55 2003

Dear Leo,

>   >>> "An AW can be applied to an End User network once per 12-month period.
>   >>> This means an LIR can make more than one assignment to an End User
>   >>> _in_any_such_12_months'_period, but the total amount of address space
>   >>   I think this should be added to improve clarity but...
>   >>
>   >>> cannot be larger than the LIR's AW. An LIR's AW is considered unused 
>   >>>on
>   >>> the anniversary of the first (?!? I would think _last_) assignment to
>   >>> the End User._After_the_exhaustion_of_the_AW, the LIR may only assign
>   >>> additional addresses to the same End User after approval from the RIPE
>   >>> NCC.
>   >>>
>   >>> (In one of the sentences above I have the impression that first should
>   >>> be changed to last - did I misunderstood something?)
>   >>   ... I think the ambiguity in the wording here reflects the 
>   >>ambiguity in  the policy. We could update the wording to use the word 
>   >>"last" but that  would make the policy more strict than it is at the 
>   >>moment. At some  point it would be useful to review and rationalise 
>   >>the current AW  policy. It is fairly complicated to document and so 
>   >>fairly documented to  use. It would be good (after publishing this 
>   >>updated document, I hope)  to take a new look at this part of the policy.
>   >
>   >I quote below the relevant part of RIPE-234:
>   >
>   >"
>   >5.2.5.2 Assignment Window for End User Assignments
>   >
>   >An LIR can apply their Assignment Window to an End User network only once in
>   >any 12-month period. This means that if an LIR makes more than one assignment
>   >to an organisation, the total amount of address space assigned with their AW
>   >in any twelve month period may not exceed the LIR's AW size. The LIR may only
>   >assign additional addresses to the same organisation after approval from the
>   >RIPE NCC.
>   >"
>   >
>   >In my view, this means that I may for example assign an AW worth of
>   >address space to the End User on 1 January of every year (assuming
>   >that I make no further assignments during the year).
>   >
>   >I also understand that the AW is unused at a moment in time, if at that
>   >moment I am allowed to assign an AW worth of address space (to that
>   >particular End User).
>   >
>   >In the above example, let's assume that I started assigning address space
>   >to the End User on 1 January 2000. The last time I have therefore assigned
>   >to them was 1 January 2003. If I read the text of the Draft, this
>   >means that my AW (with respect to that End User) is UNUSED, as it has
>   >to be considered unused starting 1 January 2001 (the anniversary of
>   >the FIRST assignement). My undertsanding is that it should read "LAST",
>   >therefore the AW would have to be considered unused starting 1 January
>   >2004.
>   >
>   >Did I misunderstand something?
>   
>   I think we may have been saying the same thing in different ways.

Correct. This is what happened.

>   The AW 
>   is refreshed on the anniversary of the first assignment. However, the 
>   way we look at it is that assignments following the first assignment are 
>   subtracted from the 'refreshing' and they have their own anniversaries.
>   
>   For example, if I had a /21 AW and made a /23 assignment to a customer 
>   on 1 January 2003 I would have a /22 and a /23 left from my AW for that 
>   customer for the rest of the year. If I assigned the same customer 
>   another /23 on 1 April, 1 July and 1 October my AW (for that 
>   organisation) would return to /23 on 1 January 2004. It would not return 
>   to /21 because there were three subsequent assignments each of which has 
>   an anniversary.
>   
>   If there's agreement that this is correct then we can update the text 
>   for the policy document to something clearer.

I agree with what you detailed in your reply. Yes, please do make the
document more clear, as I for one misunderstood it.

Thanks and regards,

Janos