[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund
owen at delong.com
Sun Nov 23 20:07:33 EST 2008
> 2) The allocation methodology specified/required by the language at
> the end of
> the section named "Distribution of Recovered Space" has a major,
> if not
> fatal, flaw. To wit:
> IF, for example, while nothing of a /21 or larger is available,
> two ORGs
> are each approved for a /21 on May 15, two more are approved (for
> /21s) on June 1, AND an ORG is approved for a /20 on July 1,
> THEN, when a /19 becomes available on July 15, under the 'best
> match' rule, the "July 1" ORG would get a /20, and each "May 15"
> ORG would get a /21, with the two "June 1" ORGs being left out.
> I believe that the 'desirable' outcome in that situation is that
> all 4 of
> the /21 requesters should get space, and that the /20 requester
> should have
> to wait for the -next- free block.
I actually thought about this, and, frankly, I think that the
is that the /20 requester gets in front of the two /21s.
The reason being that /21s are, by definition more likely to come up
often. However, even in a situation where /20s or /19s are more
the end result would be that the next /19 or /20 would most likely
two /21s needs. Since block fragmentation tends to be pretty much a
one-way process, I think minimizing block fragmentation in this way
is actually a desirable outcome.
More information about the ARIN-PPML