[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:13:56PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Nate Davis <ndavis at arin.net> wrote:
> > 2004    8
> > 2005    12
> > 2006    16
> > 2007    29
> > 2008    57
> > 2009    11
> > 2010    70 (year to date)
> 
> Thanks Nate. So if I'm reading this right, a 5-year supply would be a
> /16 plus whatever buffer we want to add to accommodate folks who
> qualify under critical infrastructure now but just use a regular /24
> rather than bother with the ARIN process. Bump it up to a /15 or /14
> in other words. A /20 could be as little as a 3 month supply.

On straight math, you're right...

(8 + 12 + 16 + 29 + 57 + 11 + 70) / 7 = 29 per year, average.  5
years worth is 145 /24's.  A /16 is 256, the next amount larger.

But a /17 (128 /24's) would translate to four and a half years, so
going to a /15 or /14 seems a bit uncalled for to me.

To me a 16 or 17 would be the right number, but could probably
support anything from a 15 to an 18 without too much fuss.

We also need to be sure the wording here allows for discontiguous
space, we don't need a /16 all together.  If ARIN has dribs and
drabs of /24's this is a /perfect/ use for them, while not all
micro-allocations are /24's I think that's by far the largest number
and they are generally used in non-aggregatable ways.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101119/0625e044/attachment.sig>