[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

[Jason Schiller]

Under the 25% utilization across all assignments held, an end site with a
/24 with 253 hosts, a router, network and broadcast would be 100%
utilized.  They could then waive their hands and say something about
growth, and double to a /23 (total) at 50% utilized, and double again to a
/22 (total) at 25% utilization?

My impression of the 25% requirement is to have some real world measure to
off set a pure future looking indisputable claim.

My example attempted to replace the real world measure with some real
commitment to have in process things that need IPs that can be counted (but
won't necessarily have the IP in service in 30 days).

I don't know how you avoid hand wavyness for initial allocation, or make
slow start work in a transfer world.

___Jason

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
> > Imagine a case were an end user has a real commitment to deploy five new
> > offices each with ~210 employees (each employee with a single desktop)
> over
> > the next quarter.  Office space is leased, computers are bought,
> > construction is on going for all five sites, and one site is scheduled
> to go
> > live in 45 days, 250 offers have been extended for the first site, 50
> have
> > accepted, another 200 candidates are in the interview pipeline for the
> other
> > two sites with a scheduled go live date in the next 60 days.
> >
> > Based on this growth rate, it is likely that 20 sites with approximately
> 210
> > employees (and desktops) each will be deployed in the next 12 months.
> >
> > It is anticipated that it will take 45 days to get the 210 computers at
> the
> > new site physically setup on desks, and connected to a working LAN, with
> > working Internet access.
> >
> > The organization has on hand enough equipment to number 82% of five /24s.
> > With a real one year projection based on past growth for filling 82% of
> > twenty /24s over the next year.
> >
> > One would think this should be sufficient justification for at least a
> /21
> > (five /24s round up to eight /24s or a /21) with a real commitment
> already
> > underway to use these addresses.  Once in service more than 50% of a /21
> > will be in use.
> >
> > There are also a projection for a total of twenty /24s at 82%
> utilization or
> > 51% of
> > /19 over the next year.
> >
> > This sounds like it should be a good justification for a /20 or a /19.
> >
> > I think the 25% requirement in 30 days is unreasonable, especially when
> an
> > organization is already committed but the work will take longer than 30
> > days.  But 50% of a purely future looking projection is not strong
> enough.
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> For the sake of the argument, I accept your example in whole.
>
> That organization did not appear out of thin air, suddenly hire up
> hundreds of staff and build a bunch of locations. Large organizations
> don't magically spring into being. They already had a substantial
> operation and its infrastructure. Changing the 25% 30-day requirement
> to apply in aggregate across all direct assignments held by the
> organization would resolve the problem here quite effectively.
>
> I also note that the office space is leased and being paid for while
> construction is ongoing. Given the lead time for data circuits, are
> not those contracts let as well?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150527/e55a9e50/attachment.htm>