[arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate

[Matthew Wilder]

Respectfully, I have to agree with Ron.  The policy should be biased toward allowing entities access to the resources they need, rather than biased toward the attempt to ensure each resource is immediately utilized.  In the network world, we all know that things take time.  Migrations occur.  Subscribers come and go.  Utilization on any given resource goes up and down.  In general I would love to see the policy focus more on aggregate utilization and justification.

I agree that in Ron's example an entity that can justify 4 x /20 for their 2 year need should be allowed to acquire up to those 4 x /20 at any point in the 2 years beginning with their first transfer in which they acquire the /20, regardless of utilization of the individual /20 ranges, BUT holding the overall 80% utilization requirement as a necessary condition for subsequent allocations / transfers.  This approach could lead to a balanced policy in my mind and one which accomplishes what RIR policy should do; namely to get number resources to those who need them.

mw
________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Grant [rgrant at skywaywest.com]
Sent: November 15, 2012 10:53 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate

We're very near exhaustion so any new policy should be framed with the
transfer market in mind.

If somebody's willing to sell, and somebody else is willing to buy, but
they can't justify it because of a math problem - well, I'd be in favour
of changing it.

So the example is really this:

"if you are at 90% of a /16, and all that's available for purchase is a
/20, is it really a problem if after purchase you'd be able to buy more?"


On 12-11-15 9:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Forgot to CC: List. Sorry for the duplicate, Scott.



--
Ron Grant                                Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet          Internet and Private Networking
rgrant at skywaywest.com                  Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph:  604 737 2113               Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299                            http://www.skywaywest.com

Sales, Support and Billing    http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm

_______________________________________________
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.