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

Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Fri May 2 21:44:45 EDT 2014

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> Jimmy,
>> I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger
>> allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate).
> The essence of it is, that the 80%  utilization criterion is ancient,
> and before resource scarcity, before technical improvements such as
> unnumbered interfaces, before host-based virtual hosting,  and  /31s
> as point to point links.  And  a greater utilization requirement may
> slow exhaustion.
> The number allows plenty of extra wiggle-room luxury, in addition to
> the occasional oddball patch which can't be allocated even in an
> efficient planned address allocation strategy,  which the free
> resources don't exist for, any longer.
> 80% in the aggregate criterion is unfairly strict against resource
> holders  that have  a small total allocation size.  And unfairly
> lenient against resource holders that have a large total allocation
> size.
> And removing the per-allocation utilization requirement would serve to
> exacerbate this problem.
> For example, under the current rules a holder of a /10 equivalent, can
>  call their existing allocations "efficiently utilized",   even if
> there are most recent allocation, an entire  contiguous /20s  has been
> completely untouched and unused.
> Whereas the resource holder that has a /20,   cannot have a single
> /23's worth  untouched.
> --
> -JH


I think there is room to have that discussion but it should judged on
its own merits, independent of a proposal to change the calculation

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list