[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

* David Farmer

> you asked about "operational need" not "fairness";

[citation needed]

I seem to remember my question being:

«In a state of scarcity, what is "fair"?»

While discussing the amendment:

«Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the
End Users operating networks.»

And finally asking you to provide a reference to the «primary definition
of fairness the RIR communities have been using».

So the discussion was never about "fairness"? Hmm. English is only a
secondary language of mine, so I guess I must have misunderstood you.
Apologies.

>    1)  Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP
>        addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources
>        are allocated are finite.  As such, allocations must be made in
>        accordance with the *operational needs* of those running the
>        networks that make use of these number resources and by taking
>        into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation.

So depending on how you look at it, either:

A (if ignoring the "last /8 pool"): The RIPE NCC's allocation pool is
empty. No point in talking about the Management of an Allocation Pool
that does not exist.

B (if including the "last /8 pool"): I've proposed to retain the current
requirement that LIRs must use the last /22 allocation for making
assignments to its End Users.

Either way, case closed?

Tore