[arin-ppml] Updated text for ARIN 2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update
andrew.dul at quark.net
Thu Sep 18 17:22:28 EDT 2014
On 2014-09-18 13:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I object to section 220.127.116.11.
> An organization should not be locked out of available space simply
> because they happened to be unlucky in where they got shoehorned
> compared to other organizations. If an organization has a /24 and
> needs another /24, but the adjacent /24 is not available, they should
> be able to obtain any available /24 in the block. (This holds true for
> any prefix size from /23 to /28).
> I would not have a problem with applying 18.104.22.168 or a similar
> provision to 4.10.1 in place of 22.214.171.124.
I don't support this suggestion. I believe we need to move on from
policies that require renumbering and then returning of blocks. I don't
think those really work after the free pool has been depleted,
especially since ARIN isn't likely to actually reclaim the smaller
blocks that we issued first.
> I would also prefer to leave 4.10.2 at /10 rather than shrinking it to
> /11. I realize this means only the IANA returned space becomes
> available for 4.10.1. I think that is appropriate.
My reasoning for splitting the /10 was to ensure that the 4.10.1
austerity pool was large enough to serve the ARIN community. Since the
block sizes in the austerity pool are larger than the transition pool,
the austerity pool needs to be larger to serve more organizations.
At the maximum allocation size, if this draft was to be implemented as
currently constructed, this is the total number of organizations that
could be served today.
8192 organizations (/24s) from a /11 under the transition pool 4.10.2
5120 organizations (/22s) from 2 /11s and 1 /12 under the austerity pool
To me this seems like the right split. This split could be adjusted in
the future but at this time we are still setting aside more transition
space for more organizations than austerity space.
More information about the ARIN-PPML