[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization
JOHN at egh.com
Fri May 2 20:33:24 EDT 2014
On Fri, 2 May 2014, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
> > On behalf of myself, I support this proposal.
> > On behalf of my company, which finds itself in the position
> > of 8 large allocations above 93% and 1 small allocation below the 80% mark,
> > I support this proposal.
> I believe there should be both a per-allocation utilization minimum
> and an aggregate utilization criterion.
> I also suggest a step-up in the utilization requirement: the minimum
> utilization criterion to say you are using the space efficiently
> should be upped to 95% usage demonstrated, not 80%. It has been shown
> that such efficient utilization is possible and provides better
> conservation of IP address space.
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.
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 :-)
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML