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

Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
Fri May 2 21:52:54 EDT 2014

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:10:13PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> While just an aggregate utilization criterion interesting.   I don't
> believe a /16 resource holder should be able to obtain more address
> space, if they have a  separate /21 or  /20 allocation completely (or
> mostly) unused;   it should either be used or returned, before another
> request.

Or they could just renumber some subnets out of the very heavily used
/16 into the lightly used /21 and then be eligible for more space. 
Doing so would not violate policy, and their actual efficiency after
that exercise would be exactly what it was before that exercise.  But
they'd be able to get more space.

> Justified needs means you efficiently utilize _all_  allocations,  not
> just the last one you got,   not just the allocations you feel like
> using efficiently.

That's arbitrary.  The organization with a /16 and /21 effectively has
33 /21s.  To get more space, it has to use the 33rd /21 efficiently,
but gets to aggregate the other 32 /21s into a /16 for the efficient
utilization calculation.  Why are those 32 /21s special?  Because they
happen to be in the database as one /16 instead of 32 /21s?)

Why is it not OK to get more space when you have an unused /21 that
is not adjacent to your other space, but it's OK to get more space if
you have an unused /21 hidden inside a /16?

(Also, I don't agree with the "back in my day we had to walk uphill
both ways in the snow" justification for maintaining the status quo.)

I support the proposal.

     -- Brett

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list