<div dir="ltr">David,<div><br></div><div>I do not believe current ARIN policy / process will approve a future looking two year need that is greater than the past 1 year utilization. I am fairly certain this is not the case for ISPs, I have less experience as an end-user that regularly go back for IP space. </div><div><br></div><div>At either rate I do not think ARIN should be looking at future looking projections or making judgments of future business plans. </div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>ARIN Staff, </div><div>Can you confirm can an ISP request a projected two year supply of addresses that is greater than the double the past year utilization?</div><div><br></div><div>What about an end-user? </div><div><br></div><div>Under 4.3.3 how is utilization rate used as a factor is sizing future assignments?</div><div><br></div><div> 4.3.3. Utilization rate</div><div><br></div><div>Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. The basic criteria that must be met are:</div><div><br></div><div>Can you discuss how you determine if a future looking projection is justified. </div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>WRT the number of transfers...<br><div><br></div><div>There are two things going on here. </div><div><br></div><div>In the case where the organization already holds a /16 or more, they can demonstrate 80% utilization and get up to another /16.</div><div><br></div><div>In the case where the organization is holding less space then they want to grow into over the next 2 years, they have two choices.</div><div><br></div><div>Choice 1: stable growth.</div><div>They can show 80% utilization, and then double.</div><div>They can show 80% utilization again, and then again double.</div><div><br></div><div>Say they are holding a /18 at 82% utilization.</div><div>They can double. Transfer in a /18, and get total utilization of both /18s to 80% or more.</div><div>They can then double again. Transfer in a /17, and get total utilization of the /17 and two /18s to 80% or more.</div><div>They can then double again. They can transfer in a /16 (or /17 if they don't need all that space)</div><div><br></div><div>Choice 2: Rapid Growth:</div><div><br></div><div>They can look at their utilization over the most recent 3-12 months, and based on that use rate, can get a two year supply.</div><div><br></div><div>However, if there run rate since they got their last IP block has been slow, and they now have rapid growth that is not supported by their past history, then they are "slow started". </div><div><br></div><div>They can always double, and can always choose to transfer in less. They can transfer in a 90 day supply (or more) which is less than double what they are currently holding.</div><div><br></div><div>Based on that run rate of using that space, they can transfer in a two year supply. Of course if the growth rate keeps increasing, then it will end up being less than a two year supply. This is the sort of math used for slow start.</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>This is further complicated for new organizations who get a "small" "slow start block" up to a /24 for EU and up to a /21 for ISP. If this starter block is less than a 3 month supply then extra transfers (at some point) are required.</div><div><br></div><div>Say an EU gets a /24. This turns our to be a 1 month supply. At the end of the month they could claim the /24 as their 3 month run rate and qualify for a /21. However, this does not actually reflect their two year need. They may instead choose to transfer in a /23 (instead of the /21) to get them through their first 3 months at the conclusion of which they can demonstrate a 3 month run rate of three /24s which results in an approval for two year supply of </div><div>twenty-four /24s or (/20, /21).</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>In the "real world" example, the EU choose to number out of ISP space. The org cannot get space to renumber into in addition to covering their growth (this is current ARIN policy) so returning ISP space will eat into the space they get for growth until the renumbering is complete. </div><div><br></div><div>They also have rapid growth. Per your scenario, they have 29 /24 and what to grow into a /16 over the next two years. If they used 29 /24s in 90 days, then the two year need is 29*8=232 /24s, 24 /24s short of a /16. We specifically excluded run rates shorter than 3 months because we are concerned one could easily skew things by creating pent up demand, and releasing it all in a small window.</div><div><br></div><div>In this case the organization wants to transfer in the address space as soon as possible. They could have instead chosen to double (less than what they think they will need in two years) and transfer in 29 /24s. And then when those are 80% utilized in say 1.8 years, transfer in another /19 to round them out to the total holdings of a /16.</div><div><br></div><div>So in this example extra transfers are needed to return ISP space, and to establish a past utilization rate that is high enough to justify a /16.</div><div><br></div><div>If instead the EU used a /19 of ISP space to 80% or greater use, in under 90 days, they would qualify for a /16 transfer.</div><div><br></div><div>___Jason</div><div> </div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, David Huberman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com" target="_blank">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you for the detailed reply, Jason, and for expanding on my simplistic scenarios.<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm tired, but I don't understand a fundamental point. Under 2014-20, to transfer a /16 into their account (where a /16 is their believed 24-month need), they need to do three transfers over 180 days? Today they can do that in one transfer simply by showing their math to ARIN staff, demonstrating why they think a /16 is their need. If what I wrote is accurate, why is 2014-20 good in this context?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
/david<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Quoting text for context:<br>
<br>
> Choosing a 90 day look back window, they can show they used 29 /24s and qualify for 4*29= 116 /24s<br>
> They can immediately transfer in a /18, /19, /20 and a /22.<br>
<br>
> They could choose to transfer in a /18 and a /19.<br>
> They could renumber their ISP space into the /19, and use the /18 and the remainder of the three /24s out of the /19 for growth over the next 90 days <br>
<br>
> on 12/13/2014 they could again re-demonstrate they are over 80%.<br>
> They then qualify under 8.3.2.3.1 to double again<br>
> They also qualify under 8.3.2.3.2.<br>
<br>
> Choosing a 90 day look back window, they can show they used a /18 and three /24s and qualify for four times that amount, a /16, /20, and a /21<br>
<br>
> They could choose to transfer in a /16.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font>
</div>