Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Thu Feb 12 11:38:00 EST 2004
In response to Lee:
I agree that this proposal is more complex than it should
be. I wish that the current policy had numbered paragraphs
so that I could clearly and concisely refer to it rather
than trying to restate it. Let me start again by posting
the current wording (slightly changed) and then
list a number of explanatory points.
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 of ARIN
allocations, any IPv4 address range that is assigned or allocated
by the ISP 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.
4. The ISP must require the other organization to use their addresses
efficiently, in particular by using VLSM and CIDR technologies.
5. The utilization rate of an address block is calculated as the
number of utilized addresses divided by the total number of
addresses in the block.
Note the following points:
a) This policy is for ISPs, i.e. organizations
who receive an allocation from ARIN and then
transfer chunks of the allocation to other parties.
b) The utilization that we are measuring refers
to the allocation received from ARIN.
c) We don't care whether a subset of the allocation
is assigned or allocated to another party. For the
purposes of calculating utilization they are
d) We don't want to supersede other restrictions
on allocations and assignments so we impose two
conditions which attempt to echo the existing
e) Point d above would be unnecessary if we could
simply refer to numbered paragraphs.
f) The first condition says that we are not usurping
the existing requirement to justify an allocation
or an assignment.
g) The second conditon says that we are not usurping
the existing requirement for a transitive
h) The final clause could be considered redundant
because once we have defined "utilized" the
rate calculation should be obvious. However
I believe that there is value in making the
calculation explicit so that tool implementors
have a reference that maps easily into programming
i) I don't want to incorporate a few wording changes
into existing policy. I want to explicitly say
what we mean by utilization and how we measure it
in an unambiguous way because the existing policy
is interpreted differently by different ISPs.
j) I also want a clear definition for IP address
management tool vendors who may have incporporated
different calculations in their tools.
I could probably deal with references to the existing
policy in a better way. I'll think about that. And
I didn't mention broadcast and network addresses because
those are used in calculating utilization of an assigment
by end users, i.e. leaf nodes in the hierarchy.
More information about the ARIN-PPML