[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization ARIN-2014-17

Tue Jun 24 16:04:17 EDT 2014

> The problem is that the current process has disenfranchised smaller
> companies who are somewhat frequently requesting space under the 3 month
> need projection and are ending up with many /22's, /21's etc instead of
> the /20 or /19 that would have been possible prior to austerity measures.
> To make matters worse, it does not seem that such companies are
> substantially represented on PPML so it is creating an illusion that the
> policy is not necessary or would not be supported by the community at
> large (outside of PPML).
> 
This is exactly what is happening, for example I have 4 /20's and a /19 from earlier days, but now I have 7 /21's and that is the most I will ever be able to request.  We are using every possible way to keep IPv4 usage down.

--Tim

> Thanks, Jeff
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> > As the current AC shepherd of this draft, I'm all for bringing this to
> > Baltimore if there is something substantial to discuss.  However,
> > there is a lot of time between now and the next PPM time which we
> > could use on the mailing-list to get to a better understanding of the
> > issues surrounding the problem statement and crafting updated policy
> language to solve the problem.
> > IMO, we shouldn't just "punt" to the next PPM.  Everyone should also
> > realize that time to discuss this in person will be greatly limited at
> > the PPM by the current large docket of draft policies now before the
> community.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > On 6/16/2014 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> >
> > Agreed re Baltimore
> >
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> > On Jun 16, 2014 2:13 PM, "David Huberman"
> > <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe we should discuss in Baltimore in front of a more
> >> substantial audience. There are by enough people participating here,
> >> in my opinion, for any "sense of the room" to make sense.
> >>
> >> David R Huberman
> >> Microsoft Corporation
> >> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on
> >> behalf of Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> >> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:53:15 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating
> >> utilization ARIN-2014-17
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.