[address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nina Hjorth Bargisen
nihb at wheel.dk
Wed Apr 7 12:18:51 CEST 2010
On 26.02.2010 15:28:07 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi APWG, > > one of the issues pointed out by Alex le Heugh from the RIPE NCC RS > department at the last RIPE meeting was the "80% rule" for additional > IPv4 allocations, which has multiple, contradictory definitions in the > current address policy documents. > > See here: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/leheux-rough-edges-of-policies.pdf > > on page 17-21 > > and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484.html, section 5.3 and 5.4 > > > The different sections of the policy text both describe the rule > slightly differently. This makes it unclear how the 80% rule should be > applied. Let me explain by example: > > - a LIR has a /16, which is at 95% utilization, and a /19 that is at 40% > utilization. Over all their address space, the utilization would be 88%. > > - 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. Rgds Nina Bargisen TDC NET
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]