[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculatingutilization ARIN-2014-17
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Wed Jun 25 11:49:27 EDT 2014
I think you intended this for ARIN-2014-14? On that proposal I would agree
to /20 as a compromise.
On Jun 25, 2014 11:43 AM, <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:04:17 -0700
> Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> The problem described below appears to be more related to the current
>> 3-month window for additional allocations, not necessarily the
>> utilization metric. The 3-month window has had a number of
>> side-effects, some of which were not anticipated when that policy was
>> put in place. With run-out in the region approaching rapidly we need to
>> turn our attention to the longer term policies which will support the
>> desires of the community (as best possible) through the transfer market
>> or other mechanisms. Changing the utilization formula (for those
>> requests which do require a formal needs assessment) may be part of the
>> policy changes which are needed.
>> Some of the problem of the formula are long standing. If your last
> was a /22 and you have a larger customer come to you with a legitimate and
> clear need for a /22 or /21 you have no way of getting it no matter what %
> is in the policy. It has always seemed to me, that "need" should have a
> lot more to
> do with what you are going to do with the requested allocation, and what
> is available
> in your current allocations, than some arbitrary utilization percentage.
> problem is that ARIN would then have to get into network design arguments.
> The argument that just removing the needs test for smaller allocations
> has some merit. The problem seems to be in defining what is small. A
> compromise of /20 has
> been suggested and I think it's reasonable. Even though I support needs
> testing I can support removing it at a /20 and smaller.
> Larry Ash
>> On 6/24/2014 1:08 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> This is the problem I'm trying to solve and why I've been so vocal about
>>> Steven Ryerse
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Tim Gimmel
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:04 PM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net List
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of
>>> calculatingutilization ARIN-2014-17
>>> 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.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> Larry Ash
> Network Administrator
> Mountain West Telephone
> 123 W 1st St.
> Casper, WY 82601
> Office 307 233-8387
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML