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-o...
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