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, [email protected] 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
