[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization

[Jeffrey Lyon]

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