[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization
Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Fri Jun 13 18:41:06 EDT 2014
Tim,
I am also uncertain of the current status but would like to see some progress.
Thanks, Jeff
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Tim Gimmel <Tim.Gimmel at metronetinc.com> wrote:
> I not really sure where this policy discussion is at the moment, but I want to assert the current method places a strain on small carriers just trying to do business. We are in the process of implementing IPv6, but is will be a long journey.
> Overall I am way past 80% utilization, but because my last allocation (and this is based on actual usage, not just what has been 'swiped') has not yet reached 80% we are practically stymied.
>
> Tim's 2 cents!
>
> Tim
>
> Tim Gimmel
> Metronet | Senior Network Engineer
> 3701 Communications Way | Evansville, IN 47715
> Office: 812.456.4750
> www.MetronetInc.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:14 PM
>> To: Jeffrey Lyon
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating
>> utilization
>>
>> While I support Jeffry's proposal for changing the calculation method, in
>> terms of changing the threshold, I'd like to say that I really think it is
>> time to stop trying to re-arrange the IPv4 deck chairs and get on board
>> the IPv6 luxury liners that have come to rescue us from the sinking IPv4
>> ship.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On May 2, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 2 May 2014, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think 95% is too high, if the previous example of 3 /24's at 100%
>> >>> and
>> >>> 1 /24 at 75% is realistic. That works out to 93.75% aggregate
>> >>> utilization, not quite reaching the bar, so 90% might be a better
>> threshold.
>> >>
>> >> For 3 /24s yes. The difficulty here, is trying to pick a single
>> >> utilization proportion that works regardless of the aggregate
>> >> allocation size, to allow for the loss of the oddball /26 or /27 that
>> >> can neither be returned nor reused, perhaps another method is in
>> >> order than presuming a single aggregate utilization criterion is
>> >> the most proper.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The more resources you are allocated, the more opportunity to make
>> >> your resource allocation efficient. By the time you get down to a
>> >> /26, an entire /24 is less than 0.4%.
>> >>
>> >> Aggregate Resources Allocated Required Aggregate
>> >> Utilization criterion
>> >> more than a /25 75%
>> >> more than a /22, 80%
>> >> more than a /20 85%
>> >> more than a /19 90%
>> >> more than a /18 95%
>> >> more than a /17 97%
>> >> more than a /16 98%
>> >> more than a /15 99%
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> OTOH, /24's are pretty small and maybe that example was just for
>> >>> illustration. If people really in this situation have much larger
>> >>> allocations, they would be easier to slice and dice and thus use
>> >>> (relatively) efficiently. 75% of a /24 leaves just 64 addresses (a
>> >>> /26) unused, which even if contiguous are hard to redeploy for some
>> >>> other use. 75% of a /16 would leave 16384 unused addresses, which
>> could be utilized much more easily.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Personally, I don't much care since my company has its /24, and
>> >>> that's probably all the IPv4 we'll ever need :-)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> John Santos
>> >>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
>> >>> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -JH
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Jimmy,
>> >
>> > I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger
>> > allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate).
>> >
>> > As a practical matter I believe these measures should be handled as
>> > separate policy proposals. The current proposal should be limited to
>> > the calculation method and perhaps you could write a new proposal if
>> > you wanted to change the utilization threshold?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
>> > Fellow, 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
Fellow, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list