[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization ARIN-2014-17
Andrew Dul
andrew.dul at quark.net
Mon Jun 16 13:53:15 EDT 2014
Hello,
I sent a longer summary of where this policy discussion is last week,
I've pasted a link below to that message in the archive.
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-June/028654.html
In general, I would say that this draft policy is stalled at this
point. The 80% utilization policy underpins a large majority of the
current policies and thus is a substantial change. There have been a
few people who have voiced their support, but not enough that I believe
would allow this policy to move forward as a recommended draft at this
point.
I would also point out that they current policy also constrains larger
providers but in a different way as ARIN is now more closely enforcing
the current policy of "efficiently utilized all previous allocations"
(4.2.4.1) as noted during the NANOG PPC.
Leif, I don't think there is an easy scaling algorithm to apply to
utilization. The problem with a scaling algorithm is it likely will be
perceived as "unfair" by organizations on one side of the size
continuum. (We tried HD ratio for v6 and that was not easily
understood, and lead to lots of confusion.)
Thanks,
Andrew
On 6/13/2014 4:33 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> I was really hoping somebody would suggest, perhaps, some sort
> of easy-to-apply scaling algorithm so that it makes it easier for
> the smaller guys to get the space they need, but harder for the bigger
> guys to game the system.
>
> I'm sure there's some sort of curve that fits, but my advanced maths
> are limited to Pythagoras.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:41 PM
> To: Tim Gimmel
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization
>
> 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 _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list