[arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate

[Scott Leibrand]

On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Wilder
> <Matthew.Wilder at telus.com> wrote:
>> I would absolutely support a change in this policy.  I agree it is currently highly unfavorable to those with multiple allocations.  I know because I have quite a few allocations, and trying to get them all up to 80% utilization is like tacking jello to the wall.  Not a fun exercise.  You have my +1.
>> 
>> Matthew Wilder
>> TELUS
>> ________________________________________
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon [jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net]
>> Sent: November 13, 2012 7:36 PM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net List
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I put in a IPv4 request today and received this reply:
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> Message:Hello Jeffrey,
>> 
>> Thank you for the reply. We don't aggregate your holdings to come up
>> with a utilization percent. Each individual block must be efficiently
>> utilized. That's how policy is written, and that's how ARIN's operated
>> since our inception. 2% of a /21 isn't a lot, you're right, but policy
>> is policy, and it says 80%, so it's best if we don't make exceptions
>> and hold everyone to the same rule, dont you agree?
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> We hold 2 x /21 and it seems that 78% + 92% = 85% aggregate
>> utilization is not sufficient under current policy.  I do not believe
>> it is equitable that we're ineligible to request resources because our
>> space is deaggregated where a network operator with contiguous /20
>> would be eligible.
>> 
>> Would anyone else be in favor of amending this?
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Are there any other opinions on this matter? I would like to hear any
> opposition that may exist before moving forward with drafting a policy
> proposal.
> 

Not necessarily opposed, but one reason for the existing language is: if you are at 90% of a /16, and your 3 month need is only for a /20, then you would still be at >80% immediately after getting your /20, without using a bit of it. If you have to use 80% (or even 50%) of all allocations, that eliminates that loophole. 

Scott