[arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 16:38:57 EST 2012


On Nov 16, 2012 7:56 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
wrote:
>
> I agree with the change. Fairness needs to prevail.
>

+1

CB

Sent from ipv6-only android

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 12:45 AM, "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?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> >> President, Black Lotus Communications
> >> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype:
blacklotus.net
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> > President, Black Lotus Communications
> > mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype:
blacklotus.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20121116/734e01fb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list