[address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
leo vegoda leo at ripe.net
Sat Oct 18 22:40:10 CEST 2003
Hi, Janos Zsako <zsako at banknet.net> wrote: [...] >>> "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: > >" >18.104.22.168 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. 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. [...] >My understanding so far was that there are LIRs that have PI allocations, >so they can assign PI space to there customers, and there are LIRs who >do not have such an allocation. These latter are, however, able to >support End Users in getting PI address space by sending these requests >to the RIPE NCC (on behalf of the End User, i.e. the End User would not >have to, and should not contact the RIPE NCC directly). > >I agree with Emma that what you state above (and what I hope I have >detailed further correctly) is not obvious form the document. It may be >a good idea to add some text that clarifies this... Your text here is probably clearer than what was originally written. I think we should use it for the new policy document. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager