[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization

[Martin Hannigan]

I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise,
opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been
subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.


Best,

-M<



On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
wrote:
> No, but I think it will be before any new policy proposal moving at
"normal" speed takes effect. (The /24 minimum allocation size might take
effect before then. If so, that will probably accelerate runout further.)
>
> If you think (as I do) that this policy change would still be useful
after runout when most requests result in a transfer, you could probably
sidestep a lot of potential opposition by specifying that it would only go
into effect after free pool runout, or would only affect transfers.
>
> Scott
>
>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net<javascript:;>>
wrote:
>>
>> Scott,
>>
>> Also, we're already in Phase 4, so isn't it fair to say that the free
>> pool is essentially exhausted?
>>
>> Thanks, Jeff
>>
>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
wrote:
>>> This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use
to
>>> help prevent a run on the remaining free pool from organizations with
large
>>> quantities of existing space.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to change this before free pool runout, or are you
concerned
>>> with making needs justification a bit easier for transfers once the free
>>> pool is exhausted? I would support the latter, but not the former.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net<javascript:;>
>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Friends, Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the
>>>> utilization requirement for new requests is being calculated on a per
>>>> allocation basis rather than in aggregate. For example, if an
>>>> organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 100% and the
>>>> fourth utilized at 75%, that request would be denied. This is a bit
>>>> out of balance as an organization with a single /20 utilized at 80%
>>>> would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to request
>>>> additional space.
>>>>
>>>> The last time this was discussed it sounded as if the community would
>>>> support a policy proposal to change this calculation to be considered
>>>> in aggregate vs. per assignment. Does this remain the case?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --
>>>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
>>>> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications
>>>> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com <javascript:;>| 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 <javascript:;>
).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any
issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
>> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications
>> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com <javascript:;> |
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 <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140430/10f753f0/attachment.htm>