[ppml] Increase the flexibility of IP allocations to facilitate planning

[Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)]

> Organizations are penalized for using IPv4 addresses efficiently because 
> if they do so, they have no internal buffer of hidden IPv4 addresses that 
> they can use in the event that an allocation request is denied or delayed. 
> The net effect is to encourage organizations to keep a secret stash of IP 
> addresses that they could use if necessary.

This paragraph makes no sense.  If you are efficiently utilizing your space there would be no reason to be denied or delayed in getting additional space.  Where as, if you were keeping a secret stash of IP space, that would be the perfect example to get delayed or denied.  

I would also disagree that the 80% usage requirement is to stringent.  I think if you use your space wisely and submit your request as you reach 80% you should have no problem getting your request approved and your new block allocated before running out.  

I would however support a 6 month allocation cycle.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:44 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Increase the flexibility of IP allocations to facilitate
planning


I believe that the current policy for IPv4 allocations is too rigid and 
should be made more flexible in a number of areas.

A 3-month allocation cycle is too short. This should be increased to allow 
organizations to receive a 6 month supply of IPv4 addresses.

The 80% usage requirement before applying for more addresses is too rigid. 
This should be loosened up to allow organizations to apply for new 
addresses before they have reached 80% usage as long as they can supply 
usage trend data that shows they will surpass 80% within 6 months.

There needs to be a clear appeal process. Currently the only appeal route 
is to a non-existent organization, namely IANA. I have tried to contact 
IANA on another matter and after 11 days and two attempts I still have no 
reply. If a telephone company is denied new phone number blocks by NANPA 
they can appeal to have that decision overturned by the PUC. We have no 
similar appeal possibility within ARIN.

Organizations are penalized for using IPv4 addresses efficiently because 
if they do so, they have no internal buffer of hidden IPv4 addresses that 
they can use in the event that an allocation request is denied or delayed. 
The net effect is to encourage organizations to keep a secret stash of IP 
addresses that they could use if necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
Capacity Planning, Prescot St., London, UK
Mobile: +44 7900 823 672    Internet: michael.dillon at radianz.com
Phone: +44 20 7650 9493    Fax: +44 20 7650 9030