[arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)

[Chris Grundemann]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 16:50, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/29/10 10:32 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the fact that ARIN Staff is concerned that this policy may
>> favor organizations who are granted reservations too much and Marty
>> believes that it does not go far enough to provide relief to those
>> same organizations illustrates that we have actually found a pretty
>> decent compromise.
>
> I don't think we are too far apart with respect to the concepts, it's the
> mechanics and implementation that I have an issue with. In it's current form
> I doubt that it is even implementable. Regardless,  the reservation
> mechanisms are hugely unfair to large and small networks alike.
>
> By reducing the allocation sizes only the larger reserved allocations are
> significantly impacted. That impact is both planning and expense. The way
> that the proposal reads to me is that if you make a reservation under a
> class, you are assigned at min and could be max. If you are assigned the min
> and the allocations are reduced based on inventory, you're good to go. If
> you're reduced at the max, you're cut X% to insure that all reservations
> over the lifecycle of the system are met. And everywhere in between.
>
<snip>

I think you misunderstand the mechanics. The actual effect of the
current text is VERY similar to your "quarterly reductions." I believe
the confusion lies between quarterly allocation sizes and reservation
sizes.

Let me try an example:

Org A requests the minimum quarterly allocation of a /25. That is one
/25 per quarter for 2 years which equals a /22 reservation.

Org B requests the maximum quarterly allocation of a /18. Adding up
two years worth of quarters gives them a /15 reservation.

The minimum reservation after reduction is one quarterly allocation at
the minimum; a /25.

The table looks like this (% is percent reduced, the ORg columns are
number of /32s reserved):

%	Org A	Org B
0	1024	131,072
25	768	98,304
50	512	65,536
75	256	32,768
87.5	128	16,384
93.75	128	8,192

What that says to me is that in the most extreme case (min vs max) the
reductions have to go over 87.5% before the small guy sees an
advantage. In all other cases, the percentage will be higher. In other
words, the larger reserved allocations are *not* the only ones
significantly affected by reductions.

Hope that helps,
~Chris

>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org