[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement - revised

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 1, 2012, at 13:52 , Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 09:46 , Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> It means that at least one serving site has enough end-site assignments to justify the size of the serving site blocks.
>>> 
>>> Sure, but how many is that?
>> 
>> As specified in the original policy... enough such that the next lower nibble boundary would not leave a 25% minfree.
> 
> OK, so as an example (to ensure we are on the same page); let's say I
> split MyISP into 11 regions (11 serving sites) and my largest serving
> site has 200 subscribers today.
> 
> So under current initial allocation policy:
> Since 200 > 192 (75% of 256), I jump from a /40 for each serving site to a /36.
> Since 11 < 12 (75% of 16), I only bump one nibble and receive a /32 from ARIN.
> 
> Now, let's say I decide (or hire a new architect/engineer who decides)
> that I screwed up and really need 15 serving sites (regions) in my
> network. I split the network up but leave the largest serving site
> intact (no change = 200 subs).
> 
> Under this new/proposed criteria:
> Since 15 > 14.4 (90% of 16), MyISP gets the next largest nibble from
> ARIN, a /28.
> Since my largest site has 200 subs, I have a maximum of 3,000 subs
> total but I now have over 1 million /48s.
> That puts me at less than 0.3% utilization of /48s.
> 
> Is that about right?
> ~Chris
> 

Yep... That's about right.

If you see a problem with this, then, let me know what it is.

Owen