<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/14/2014 6:44 PM, John Curran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:329F6ABF-5623-4469-B9EC-0F75408CC5AB@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net">jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">It applies to all but is of zero benefit to large
orgs with contiguous space. This idea that it allows big
orgs to horde space is a red herring.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>Jeffrey - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> For sake of argument, imagine a large ISP which over the
course of time has</div>
<div> ended up with a /8, two /16, and a /14 IPv4 blocks (with
the /14 being the most</div>
<div> recently issued block because of nearly full utilization of
all prior blocks at the</div>
<div> time.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div> Under present policy, the ISP cannot request address space
until they have </div>
<div> brought the utilization of the most recently issued block
(the /14) up to 80%.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> Under the proposed policy, the ISP is immediately eligible
to request space,</div>
<div> since their aggregate utilization (even with a completely
unused /14) is going </div>
<div> to be very high (potentially as much as 97% due to the
fully-used /8 block.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> The proposed policy allows organizations to request space
so long as their </div>
<div> aggregate utilization is higher than 80%, and this means
many existing </div>
<div> organization with large IPv4 holdings will suddenly qualify
to receive an </div>
<div> additional allocation if they choose to request it.
Whether that is desirable</div>
<div> or not is a matter for the community to decide.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Your theoretical argument assumes a certain kind of large ISP. Let
me propose a couple of alternative scenarios:<br>
<br>
Imagine a large ISP which over the course of time has ended up with
a /8, two /16, and a /14 block with the /14 being the most recently
issued block.<br>
<br>
Under present policy, they cannot get more space until the /14 is
documented at 80% utilization, which they've got the documentation
all ready for.<br>
<br>
Under the proposed policy, the ISP can't get any space, because
their recordkeeping on the /8 is terrible. They got the /8 and the
/16 pre-ARIN, probably as two different entities than the one that
got the /14, and now instead of submitting the detailed
documentation they started keeping not long after they got that
second /16 (so they could get the /14, and so they could get more
when the /14 filled) they'd need to spend more time and effort than
they have to dredge up utilization records for that /8 just to get
another 3 months worth of space from ARIN (even though the scrap
papers laying around and the routing tables strongly suggest that
all that space really is in use, and isn't easily reclaimed to meet
their pressing need). So they get nothing.<br>
<br>
Or imagine a large ISP which over the course of time has ended up
with a /8, two /16 and a /14 with the /14 being the most recently
issued block.<br>
<br>
Under present policy, they cannot get more space until the /14 is
documented at 80% utilization, and they're all ready to do that.<br>
<br>
Under the proposed policy, the ISP can't get any space because while
they've got great records for how the /8 and the two /16s are
utilized, the customer and internal assignments they did back then
are deemed to be inefficient by ARIN staff when they review the
utilization records for everything. All those point-to-point links
using whole /24s, and dialup pools that are sized for what was
needed back in the days of dialup but nowadays only have a handful
of customers on them aren't ok any more. So instead of being able to
just pounce on some space because of this policy change, they're
actually blocked from getting more.<br>
<br>
Overall, I think the answer is that for certain kinds of ISPs in
certain kinds of growth patterns, the change in policy would make it
easier for them to qualify. But for many others, it would make it
harder. <br>
<br>
I am not in favor of pulling the rug out from under people at the
last minute, and given how close we are to runout it would be
exactly that to change IPv4 policy on them. So I oppose this policy
as written, and any other attempts to make last-minute changes. For
people who've planned ahead, stability is the best we can give them.
For people who haven't planned ahead, they're screwed whether we
change the policy or not.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>