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