[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jan 11 14:05:16 EST 2011

On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Leo Bicknell 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.

When we developed the original policy, we used materially because
codifying a particular percentage didn't work so well...

Being <50% utilization on a /24 is a lot less material to the community
than being <50% utilization on a /16. I wouldn't want to start trying to
revoke part of a /24 from an end user organization just because they
dropped to 126 hosts. However, an organization with a /16 that is
only using 126 /24s would seem to me like a reasonable target for
getting back at least a /18 or so.

I think that material is variable depending on the amount of address
space held and other factors.

I think codifying that metric in policy would be overly complex and even
more difficult to get consensus on.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list