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

* David Farmer

> 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.

I wanted to know where you'd seen this "primary definition of fairness".
I don't dispute that 2050-bis mentions "operational need", but I do
dispute that it says it is the "definition of fairness". If you didn't
mean to make that claim I suppose we were talking past each other.

> 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".

If already allocated resources are to be considered as part of the
allocation pool, then the pool would essentially be infinite and
limitless as you can re-allocate the same addresses over and over and
over and over again. So IMHO this is quite a stretch.

> 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.

In the RIPE region LIRs don't allocate, they assign.

(Sub-allocations being the extremely rarely used exception.)

Tore