[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)

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