[arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate

Larry Ash lar at mwtcorp.net
Fri Nov 16 20:05:48 EST 2012

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:22:53 -0600
  Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/12, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> exactly....  and It would not be favorable to have a measure of
> utilization that allowed an organization to fail to efficiently
> utilize  each of the allocations they obtain, before requesting
> another.
> It's essentially like saying  "You used your previous allocation _SO_
> efficiently, that we will give you a bonus,  and  let you not use the
> next allocation so efficiently, and still obtain more resources."
> Instead it should just be  "lesson learned"  for the applicant;  if
> you ever actually exceed 80% utilization, stop allocating from that
> block, start allocating from the new one, and there is no need to
> change policy.

Reaching 80% on a smaller allocation is a lot
harder than a /18. Over time holes develop in the utilization.
You will reuse them but at any given time it's difficult if not

How about 80% overall with no single allocation under 70% (whatever).

The 80% policy has always greatly favored the big guys. It's much
easier to reach 80% on a /18 than a /20. Natural holes that occur
always seem to amount to almost 10-25% in a /20 unless much of it
has been delegated as /23's or /24's.

I have turned away customers on a number of occasions over the years
because they needed /24's or larger and I didn't have any open and no
hope of getting more. For several years my utilization was only in the
lower 70's but the largest contiguous blocks were frequently /26's.

We constantly worked at closing the gaps but you can only ask customers
to do so much.

> (Except to increase the utilization requirement to a higher value);
> E.g.  80%  utilization on the preceding allocation,  and 99%
> utilization on  allocations that preceded it..
> The applicant who got the larger allocation and achieved the same
> overall percentage of utilization,  had to meet a larger need
> requirement to obtain that allocation.    And they also had to
> allocate more number resources after actually obtaining the
> allocation, to be allocated the next one.
>> Scott
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Larry Ash

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list