[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On 20/04/16 08:37, Riccardo Gori wrote:
>
> I think there is no confusion.
> section  5.3 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649
Yes - I agree that there should be no confusion on the current policy text.


I commented on Remcos statement:
On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanmook at gmail.com wrote:
> This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it 
> was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do 
> with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start 
> allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a 
> single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion.
  And as far as I has been able to establish it was not that clear - to 
me - from the text in the original proposal.
So while it is clear today - it was not clear to me that it was "from 
day one" - as Remco stated.

As far as I can see the language you refer to was introduced in RIPE 530 
on 21 Oct 2011.
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-530

The reason I point out this is that we should not use the past as an 
argument for the future - but have an open discussion on whats best for 
the future. And if we refer to the past it should

>
> [...]
> 5.3 Address Recycling
> Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by 
> the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1.
> This section only applies to address space that is returned to the 
> RIPE NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by 
> the RIPE NCC itself.
> [...]
>
> What is you understanding of "not be returned to the IANA but 
> re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself" ?
Address space recovered by the RIPE NCC and not returned to IANA.
The other two categories is address space from IANA and the last /8.

My understanding is that the current practice under curent policy is to 
threat all 3 categories the same.
 From RIPE 530 on 21 Oct 21 going forward.

Hans Petter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160420/055947b4/attachment.html>