[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Alan,

If they chose to round it up, and it went above the 5 times multiplier,
more documentation would be required as stated in the policy.

If they chose to round it down, it would be within the multiplier and no
more documentation would be required.

If they choose to hit the closest bit boundary to the nearest /24, again
no more documentation would be required but deaggregation would occur as a
result.

Sunday and I have discussed this and believe that this is the best way
forward, as to introduce a change in the policy now would result in it no
longer being able to enter final call and that would not be in the
interests of the community considering the overwhelming consensus the
community gave the policy yesterday.

Thanks

Andrew


On 2013/06/21 10:38 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> So, let us look at an institution that has 20 thousand combined
>> staff and students, and is already sitting on a /16 worth of
>> space.
>>
>> The combined allocation they would qualify for under this policy
>> is 20 * 5 = 100k IP addresses.
>
>Would that be rounded up to a /15 (131072 addresses, equivalent
>to using a multiplier of about 6.55:1 instead of 5:1), or rounded
>down to a /16 (65536 addresses, equivalent to using a multiplier
>of about 3.27:1), or a /16 plus a /17 (98304 addresses, equivalent
>to a multiplier of 4.91:1), or something else agreed between the
>applicant and AFRINIC?
>
>My reading of the proposal is that the applicant could choose any
>multiplier between 0 and 10, with multipliers less than or equal
>to 5 being almost automatically accepted by AFRINIC, but with
>larger multipliers requiring more justification.
>
>--apb (Alan Barrett)
>_______________________________________________
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at afrinic.net
>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd