[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 11:51:06 EST 2011
Has this been a problem to date? What's the current threshold for requiring underutilized resource return?
On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 08:39:14AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> I don't think this changes that: current policy already allows
>> it (for orgs materially out of compliance, which would mean more
>> like <50% than <80%).
> Your response made me realize that I glossed-over the vague nature
> of "materially". I suspect if we asked the room what qualified
> answers would range from 1% utilization to 79% utilization (in my
> overly simplified example).
> In retrospect my desire for a low water mark is equal parts of
> wanting to avoid thrashing, but also wanting folks to have a specific
> target so they can plan and evaluate their own network. We don't
> need ARIN staff and a resource holder to get in an argument over
> the definition of a vague word like materially.
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML