[ppml] Defining Utilization of IPv4 addresses

[Owen DeLong]

I view them as compatible because they are unrelated.  Nothing in the
proposal to define utilization affects 2002-3 because 2002-3 does not
depend on utilization as a criteria.

However, in other policies where utilization is a criteria, the definition
below is a proposal which could normalize how that is applied.  I am not 
sure
if it is the correct proposal, but, I agree that it is a good idea for
there to be a consistent definition of utilization.  I am not sure if that
definition should be a policy proposal or if it should be something set by
the AC and ARIN Staff and documented as an adjunct to the policy.

However, I don't think 2002-3 is a reason not to proceed on this.  I 
consider
them completely separate and unrelated issues.

Owen


--On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:24 -0500 Marshall Eubanks 
<tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> That is my point :
>
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> wrote:
>
>>> How does this mesh with Policy Proposal 2002-3 ? Especially
>>> question 3 ?
>>
>> 2002-3 was adopted and it says nothing about utilization.
>> This is the text of 2002-3:
>>    Multi-homed organizations may justify and obtain a block
>>    of address space with prefix length extending to /22
>>    directly from ARIN. When prefixes are longer than /20,
>>    these micro-allocations or micro-assignments will be from
>>    a reserved block for that purpose.
>>
>
> The whole point of this was that it was _not_ justified by
> utilization, but by "multi-homed-ness". I do not regard 2002-3 as
> compatible with
>
>> 1. When an ISP applies for IPv4 address space, ARIN analyzes the
>>    utilization rate of any existing IPv4 address blocks allocated
>>    to the ISP.
>>
>> 2. For the purposes of calculating the utilization rate, any IPv4
>>    address range that is assigned or allocated to another organization
>>    will be counted as utilized if it meets the following two
>> conditions.
>>
>> 3. The assigned or allocated address range must be of a size that is
>>    justified by ARIN policy.
>
>
>> Nevertheless, we still need a publicly agreed definition
>> of "utilized" and an agreed way to calculate utilization
>> rates.
>>
>> --Michael Dillon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>                                   Regards
>                                   Marshall Eubanks
>
> T.M. Eubanks
> e-mail : marshall.eubanks at telesuite.com
> http://www.telesuite.com
>



-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20040211/424733e0/attachment.sig>