This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]