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

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.  

5.4 (sub-allocations) was added later, and has language about the 80%
criteria that is misleading - this section is only concerned about
sub-allocations, and "the 80% sentence" was put in there to emphasize
the existing rule, not to change it (I know that from the proposer of
this policy change...).


Now, "just changing the text according to what the WG chair thinks" would 
not be the right thing - so what I think is the way forward now is to 
get feedback from *you*, and if there is clear guidance from the working 
group on resolving this ambiguity, we run a formal proposal to change the 
wording of the document in one way or the other.

(Please don't get into sidetrack discussions on whether "80%" or "IPv4"
is useful, but focus on this specific question.)

thanks, and regards,

Gert Doering,
	APWG Chair

-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  144438

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279