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

Hi,

On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> I don't dispute that 2050-bis mentions "operational need", but I do
> dispute that it says it is the "definition of fairness".

Just to be clear: "operational need" has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness".

The former is, at least in theory, objectively verifiable by, e.g., measuring requester utilization efficiency, customer growth patterns, etc. (ignoring this has never been done and the IANA/RIR system is not capable of doing this -- the entire system relies on trust and passing the giggle test).

The latter is a purely subjective value judgement.

The intent of goal #1 in 2050bis is to encourage people to look at the free pool availability when considering allocation policies. In cases where the allocation pool is tightly constrained, I believe it safe to say it was the consensus opinion of the authors that "the operational needs of those running the networks that make use of the number resources" should be a key consideration. In my personal view, this should true even if it is considered "unfair" by some.

>> 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.

An "allocation pool" is the source from which resources are taken. Once a resource is allocated, it is removed from the allocation pool.  As mentioned in 2050bis, "the pools from which these resources are allocated are finite." 

It is, of course, true that the allocation pool can be replenished, e.g., when someone returns a block of addresses to some part of the Internet registry system, however that is a relatively rare occurrence.  

AFAICT, the question 2013-03 revolves around is whether or not the RIPE community considers the free ("allocation") pool exhausted. If it is exhausted, questions of "fairness" or "operational need" are irrelevant in allocation pool management -- the allocation pool size is zero so there is nothing to consider.

>> 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.

The statements in 2050bis are goals and recommendations of a small number of people interested in address allocation policy, not laws or axioms. One of my reasons for helping with 2050bis was to get away from the "quotations from holy text" approach of address policy making that has infected the community as a result of 2050 and instead, encourage people to evolve policies through "an open, transparent, and broad multi-stakeholder manner". I would personally be distressed to see the Old Testament replaced by the New Testament.

Regards,
-drc