[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Suchy
danny at danysek.cz
Mon May 23 17:15:33 CEST 2011
Hi, On 05/23/2011 03:10 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: >> Current policy can be read by several ways. We're just playing with >> words - current policy doesn't force making single /22 allocations from >> other blocks than 185.0.0.0/8 (last /8) - it just says "if you have to >> allocate something from 185.0.0.0/8, you can do only do this and >> this..." in my eyes. Section 5.6 talks just about the last /8 and this >> is quite clear description. Last /8 is single address block. > > That is not what it says. The text is: "The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. From then on the distribution of IPv4 address space will only be done as follows:" > > It says, 'the distribution of IPv4 address space' in general. Once the RIPE NCC has to allocate addresses from the last /8, then from that point in time the distribution "will only be done as follows", which is specified in the "1. Allocations for LIRs from the last /8" and "2. Unforeseen circumstances" sections. The text is pretty clear that I think. Article name is: "Use of last /8 for PA Allocations" - that doesn't mean other /8... it's all only about last /8. >> If some address space is returned, then I don't see any reasonable >> argument, why not (re)allocate more than /22 to someone else, if someone >> needs new addresses and meets other criteria. > > Because the current policy specifies that this is not possible. That can be changed by proposing a different policy of course. Current policy keeps this question open. And new proposal is similar - if some article is named "use of last /8" (5.6), it cannot influence other /8's - or this article name doesn't make sense. Last /8 is only one and policy had to be clear. >> Final decision is still on RIPE NCC > > The RIPE NCC can only decide what we (the community) tell them to decide. They follow the policies we set here on this mailing list. And I don't see any argument, why tie RIPE NCC hands by applying this policy to other /8's. Current procedures can be used without any problem anytime - even in future on returned address space. If no addresses are available except last /8, allocations are simply proceeded in accordance to section 5.6, if there's some other address space available, standard procedure can be applied. Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]