[address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Agenda for upcoming APWG meeting at RIPE 60
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Apr 7 13:15:11 CEST 2010
On 7 Apr 2010, at 11:18, Nina Hjorth Bargisen wrote: >> - 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 agree with Gert and Nina. The total number of addresses allocated to an LIR "just feels" like a fairer yardstick than treating the organisation as a series of disconnected islands of addresses, for the purposes of this policy. Thanks Andy, uk.dev
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Agenda for upcoming APWG meeting at RIPE 60
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]