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@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 ================================================