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

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes it is. Are you expecting such a change to happen before or after? The
> recent fury of v4 policy seems geared towards sooner. I think a moratorium
> is in order except for transfer related policy at this juncture.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Martin  Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > Why should entities get a break on a standard in existence and applied
>> > to all for years?
>> >
>> > And why is tbe aggregate, in examples given, broken? ARIN already
>> > applies that to some applicants.
>> >
>> > No support.
>> >
>> > Support post exhaustion.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 20:52, 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
>> >> t... but IPv4 is already exhausted?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
>> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications
>> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype:
>> blacklotus.net

Martin,

My point is that we're already exhausted. We're in Phase 4, it doesn't
get much more exhausted than this. Are you suggesting that we wait
until there is a massive backlog of requests before supporting the
proposal?

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP
Fellow, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net