[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4 Allocations

>>> Since the policy only requires ARIN to examine the most recent 
(saving on costs)...

>Policy text states:
>"ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations, and at 
>80% of their most recent allocation in order to receive additional 

>Review of utilization is not limited to the most recent allocation.

The meaning can be confusing here. The policy is clearly not prohibiting
review of previous allocations but it is also clearly not requiring
a review of previous allocations either. In practice, ARIN often does
not review previous allocations because those allocations were, at one
time, shown to be greater than 80% allocated. This clearly saves on the
time and cost of reviewing an allocation but it does allow some 
to shift usage to newer IP allocations, either through churn or 
in order to artificially improve the efficiency of the most recent block
and to maintain a buffer of older addresses available for use if the most 
recent allocation runs out before they get a new ARIN allocation.
I'm not entirely sure that we should change to requiring ARIN to review
the member's total hoard of IP addresses, however there are some things
which lead to this change.

1. Using the HD ratio is based on the idea that there is inherent overhead
in managing a large hoard of IP addresses, therefore if we use the HD 
at all, we should probably base it on the entire hoard, not just the 

2. In recent years the NANP has moved to requiring phone companies to 
for their entire hoard of phone numbers when applying for more. While the
IP address situation is not identical, this indicates that other companies
can find a way to manage their entire hoard of numbers/addresses and 
on the disposition of the entire hoard.

3. The manipulation of ARIN policy due to churn and renumbering is not 
available to all members because of the diversity of network architectures
and business models. Therefore it doesn't seem fair to continue with the
current policy which is too loose on this point and too rigid on the usage

--Michael Dillon