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

[David Huberman]

It might be, except there is another strong scenario discussed in the original policy text.

End-users are subject to this text for ADDITIONAL assignments.

Policy only requires 80% overall utilization of existing addresses. You’d (often) continue to use existing space to 100% before you’d open up the new block. It maximizes clean summarization opportunities.  If you properly manage your address space, you may very well not meet the 25% in 90 days requirement.



From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:24 PM
To: Jason Schiller
Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

Would simply changing 30 days to 90 days be sufficient to address the issues being raised?

Owen



On May 27, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto: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<mailto:herrin at dirtside.com>  bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>



--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150528/9a496daf/attachment.htm>