[arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization
ikiris at gmail.com
Wed May 7 17:18:09 EDT 2014
Support aggregate. Also support tiered aggregate changes, although I
feel the effort is unnecessary at this point, and would prefer to see
them as separate proposals.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Brett Frankenberger
<rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:05:06PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brett Frankenberger
>> <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>> > 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?
>> > I support the proposal.
>> You assert both should be OK. I assert neither should be OK,
>> favoring the more rigorous justification criterion as better
> Actually, I assert that both should be the same. I agree with Jeff's
> point that, for example, 32 /21s are the same whether you got them at
> one time as part of a /16 or on 8 separate occasions as part of 8
> separate /19s ... and that we should fix that, and, separately, if
> there are problems with the utilization requirement (for example, if
> 80% is not stringent enough) that should be handled separately.
>> And whether each individual allocation has to be utilized or not, the
>> calculation method, is inherently entangled with the utilization
>> It may be more work (more required renumbering or greater cost / more
>> local router entries required) to efficiently utilize the /21 hidden
>> inside the /16, in case this is not a contiguous /21, but a
>> fragmented group of a few hundred /28s and /27s spread around the
>> entire /16 due to lots of number releases over time, or an
>> ineffective allocation plan.
> Well, sure. And perhaps policy should take into consideration not only
> the utilization percentage, but also the distribution of the unused
> space. For a number of reasons, I disagree with that, but my point in
> this thread is that it's separate from question of whether or not we
> should calculate utilization differently for two organizations that
> have exactly the same amount of address space and exactly the same
> utilization, when one org got its address space as a smaller number of
> larger blocks, and the other got its space as a larger number of
> smaller blocks.
> If the right thing to do is to count smaller blocks of unused space
> differently from larger blocks of unused space, that should be a
> separate proposal.
> (Note that the contiguous free /21 is not the common case here. The
> more common case that is relevant to the proposal at hand here would be
> the most recently assigned space being 50% or so utilized -- and
> perhaps as fragmented as you describe above -- while all space that the
> organization has been allocated, in aggregate, is well over 80%
> -- Brett
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML