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

On 8/4/13 14:56 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> * David Farmer
>
>> you asked about "operational need" not "fairness";
>
> [citation needed]

Gladly,

---
On 8/4/13 13:01 , David Farmer wrote:> On 8/4/13 09:48 , Tore Anderson 
wrote:
>> * David Farmer
>>
>>> I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have
>>> been using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get
>>> Internet number resources".
>>
>> Do you have a link or reference? (Tried Google, no hits.)
>
> Try goal #1 in section #1 of RFC 2050.
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2050#section-1
>
> And in slightly different words, try goal #1 in section #2 of RFC 2050-bis.
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-02#section-2
---

> 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».

I said, "I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR 
communities have been using is, "only those that have *verified 
operational need* get Internet number resources"

> 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.

By asking me for a quotation, I interpreted that as to not only being 
about "fairness", but also about my tie of "fairness" to "operational 
need".  The concept of "operational need" still remains in RFC 2050-bis 
even though the "fairness" was dropped.  But I think RFC 2050-bis and 
"operational need" remains relevant.

>>     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?

I believe you are incorrectly equating "Allocation Pool" with "Free 
Pool", there is nothing that says the "Allocation Pool" doesn't include 
resources that are available for "Re-Allocation".  Now, I'll grant you 
that there is nothing that says it includes resources that are available 
for "Re-Allocation" either.  So, I would suggest that is an open 
question for the community to decide, and you can't necessarily say case 
closed.

Furthermore, the statements in 2050-bis apply are intended to apply to 
the whole Internet Registry System, IANA, the RIRs, and LIRs, so even if 
you consider RIPE's Allocation Pool empty, the LIR's Allocation Pool 
isn't empty and operational need should still apply to the LIR making 
the Re-allocation of resources.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================