[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 04:13:02PM -0700, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> would allow some organizations to apply for address space sooner.  Some
> postulated that the downside to this policy would be short and likely
> small for the remainder of the free pool, but it would also make it
> easier to qualify for transfer space sooner on the transfer market.
> 
> I heard that this policy shouldn't impact organizations which currently
> use the MDN 4.5 policies and that the current MDN policy does not have
> the same issue as it uses a 80% per site metric to meet utilization
> requirements.
> 
> The other issue which is related to this draft that I heard at the PPC
> was that ARIN in the past year or so updated its operational practice to
> more closely follow the current policy of " efficiently utilized all
> previous allocations" (4.2.4.1) and this is also making harder for some
> organizations to meet utilization guidelines at the time of request for
> additional space.  Do other organizations also believe the new
> operational practice is an issue and the policy should be changed?
> 
> As I stated at the PPC, so far I've seen a little support for this and
> some opposition for this proposal, but at this point not enough to move
> it forward to a recommended policy based on the current feedback.  If
> you support this policy, please post your support to the mailing-list
> otherwise as the policy shepherd I will likely be recommending that the
> AC abandon this draft at a future AC meeting.

Strongly support.

Current policy (1) treats someone holding two /16s obtained at separate
times differently from someone holding one /15, and (2) creates
incentive in the former case for the holder to renumber internally to
shift utilization from the more-utilized block to the lesser-utilized
block to be able to justify additional addresses.

Both of these are undesirable.  Efficient utilization should be a
function of what resources an organization has and how that
organization is utilizing them; whether they were acquired at the same
or different times and whether they are documented as one or two (or
more) entries in a database should not be relevant.  Policy should not
be unnecessarily creating incentives for activities (such as
renumbering to move utilization between blocks) that adds no real
value.  (Additionally, organizations are incented by current policy to
immediately stop using existing allocations, and start assigning from
new allocations, as soon as a new allocation is received.  This, too,
is a negative-value-add consequence of current policy.)

     -- Brett