[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size

[Stacy Hughes]

I agree with Pete.  The operational result will not be in line with  
the intent of the proposal.
Stacy

On Jun 10, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Pete Templin <petelists at templin.org> wrote:

> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Pete Templin wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm simply not following your suggestion of the numbers, which  
>>> includes looking at the spreadsheet you've provided.  I'll base my  
>>> discussions on the one quarter (1/4) ratio since that's what's  
>>> written into the Policy Proposal.
>>>
>>> Case study #1: ARIN has a /13 of space, also known as 524,288  
>>> addresses.  Four large-enough requests happen to be at the head of  
>>> the line, and based on the one-quarter ratio they're eligible for  
>>> a /15 of space per request.  Each request is issued a /15, also  
>>> known as 131,072 addresses.  These 524,288 addresses in four  
>>> allocations would wipe out the pool, not the 24 allocations that  
>>> you present above.
>> If ARIN has a /13 of space, the first large-enough request to come  
>> in could get a /15 based on a 1/4 ratio.  That would take ARIN's  
>> space down to /14+/15, meaning that the second large-enough request  
>> could get a /16.  That leaves /14+/15+16, which means the next few  
>> also get a /16.  Once the /14 gets broken up, leaving /15+16, then  
>> the next few requests can only get /17, until the /15 gets broken  
>> up, at which point it goes to /18, etc. etc. until you get to the  
>> minimum allocation size.
>
> OK, now I understand the intentions.  That said, the first paragraph  
> of the proposed policy needs a complete re-write, or at least the  
> first sentence: "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA  
> implementing section 10.4.2.2, a maximum allocation and assignment  
> size will be put into effect."  This needs to be completely redone  
> to reflect the dynamic nature of the ideas you're batting around.   
> Ideas like "sliding scale", "dynamic allocation/assignment size",  
> etc. come to mind.
>
> That said, I think this policy proposal leads to a highly- 
> unpredictable run-out model at a micro (i.e. per-request) level -  
> there would be essentially no way to predict how much of an  
> assignment/allocation a requester might get unless there was a  
> public status board, reports (rumors?) on mailing lists (yesterday I  
> got a /X!!!), etc.  It's predictable run-out at a macro level, but  
> quite unpredictable at a micro level.
>
> Pete
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.