Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Jeffrey Lyon)
2. Weekly posting summary for [email protected] (Thomas Narten)
3. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Scott Leibrand)
4. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Ron Grant)
5. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Matthew Wilder)
6. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:44:49 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Wilder <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<CACrmG8f+tFOyzk1=0+xqwratfdxvbxor6a+saquh7npfqkq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Wilder
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I would absolutely support a change in this policy. I agree it is currently
> highly unfavorable to those with multiple allocations. I know because I have
> quite a few allocations, and trying to get them all up to 80% utilization is
> like tacking jello to the wall. Not a fun exercise. You have my +1.
>
> Matthew Wilder
> TELUS
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Jeffrey Lyon [[email protected]]
> Sent: November 13, 2012 7:36 PM
> To: [email protected] List
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
>
> All,
>
> I put in a IPv4 request today and received this reply:
>
> -- snip --
>
> Message:Hello Jeffrey,
>
> Thank you for the reply. We don't aggregate your holdings to come up
> with a utilization percent. Each individual block must be efficiently
> utilized. That's how policy is written, and that's how ARIN's operated
> since our inception. 2% of a /21 isn't a lot, you're right, but policy
> is policy, and it says 80%, so it's best if we don't make exceptions
> and hold everyone to the same rule, dont you agree?
>
> -- snip --
>
> We hold 2 x /21 and it seems that 78% + 92% = 85% aggregate
> utilization is not sufficient under current policy. I do not believe
> it is equitable that we're ineligible to request resources because our
> space is deaggregated where a network operator with contiguous /20
> would be eligible.
>
> Would anyone else be in favor of amending this?
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> President, Black Lotus Communications
> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] | skype: blacklotus.net
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
Are there any other opinions on this matter? I would like to hear any
opposition that may exist before moving forward with drafting a policy
proposal.
Thanks,
--
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] | skype: blacklotus.net
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:53:03 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Nov 16 00:53:03 EST 2012
Messages | Bytes | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
20.00% | 1 | 23.22% | 7399 | [email protected]
20.00% | 1 | 20.08% | 6399 | [email protected]
20.00% | 1 | 19.08% | 6081 | [email protected]
20.00% | 1 | 18.88% | 6015 | [email protected]
20.00% | 1 | 18.74% | 5972 | [email protected]
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 31866 | Total
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:53:44 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Wilder
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I would absolutely support a change in this policy. I agree it is currently
>> highly unfavorable to those with multiple allocations. I know because I
>> have quite a few allocations, and trying to get them all up to 80%
>> utilization is like tacking jello to the wall. Not a fun exercise. You
>> have my +1.
>>
>> Matthew Wilder
>> TELUS
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Jeffrey Lyon [[email protected]]
>> Sent: November 13, 2012 7:36 PM
>> To: [email protected] List
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I put in a IPv4 request today and received this reply:
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> Message:Hello Jeffrey,
>>
>> Thank you for the reply. We don't aggregate your holdings to come up
>> with a utilization percent. Each individual block must be efficiently
>> utilized. That's how policy is written, and that's how ARIN's operated
>> since our inception. 2% of a /21 isn't a lot, you're right, but policy
>> is policy, and it says 80%, so it's best if we don't make exceptions
>> and hold everyone to the same rule, dont you agree?
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> We hold 2 x /21 and it seems that 78% + 92% = 85% aggregate
>> utilization is not sufficient under current policy. I do not believe
>> it is equitable that we're ineligible to request resources because our
>> space is deaggregated where a network operator with contiguous /20
>> would be eligible.
>>
>> Would anyone else be in favor of amending this?
>>
>>
>
>
> Are there any other opinions on this matter? I would like to hear any
> opposition that may exist before moving forward with drafting a policy
> proposal.
>
Not necessarily opposed, but one reason for the existing language is: if you
are at 90% of a /16, and your 3 month need is only for a /20, then you would
still be at >80% immediately after getting your /20, without using a bit of it.
If you have to use 80% (or even 50%) of all allocations, that eliminates that
loophole.
Scott
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:53:12 -0800
From: Ron Grant <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
We're very near exhaustion so any new policy should be framed with the
transfer market in mind.
If somebody's willing to sell, and somebody else is willing to buy, but
they can't justify it because of a math problem - well, I'd be in favour
of changing it.
So the example is really this:
"if you are at 90% of a /16, and all that's available for purchase is a
/20, is it really a problem if after purchase you'd be able to buy more?"
On 12-11-15 9:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Wilder
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are there any other opinions on this matter? I would like to hear any
>> opposition that may exist before moving forward with drafting a policy
>> proposal.
>>
> Not necessarily opposed, but one reason for the existing language is: if you
> are at 90% of a /16, and your 3 month need is only for a /20, then you would
> still be at >80% immediately after getting your /20, without using a bit of
> it. If you have to use 80% (or even 50%) of all allocations, that eliminates
> that loophole.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
Forgot to CC: List. Sorry for the duplicate, Scott.
--
Ron Grant Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet Internet and Private Networking
[email protected] Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph: 604 737 2113 Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299 http://www.skywaywest.com
Sales, Support and Billing http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:52:19 -0700
From: Matthew Wilder <[email protected]>
To: Ron Grant <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Respectfully, I have to agree with Ron. The policy should be biased toward
allowing entities access to the resources they need, rather than biased toward
the attempt to ensure each resource is immediately utilized. In the network
world, we all know that things take time. Migrations occur. Subscribers come
and go. Utilization on any given resource goes up and down. In general I
would love to see the policy focus more on aggregate utilization and
justification.
I agree that in Ron's example an entity that can justify 4 x /20 for their 2
year need should be allowed to acquire up to those 4 x /20 at any point in the
2 years beginning with their first transfer in which they acquire the /20,
regardless of utilization of the individual /20 ranges, BUT holding the overall
80% utilization requirement as a necessary condition for subsequent allocations
/ transfers. This approach could lead to a balanced policy in my mind and one
which accomplishes what RIR policy should do; namely to get number resources to
those who need them.
mw
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron
Grant [[email protected]]
Sent: November 15, 2012 10:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
We're very near exhaustion so any new policy should be framed with the
transfer market in mind.
If somebody's willing to sell, and somebody else is willing to buy, but
they can't justify it because of a math problem - well, I'd be in favour
of changing it.
So the example is really this:
"if you are at 90% of a /16, and all that's available for purchase is a
/20, is it really a problem if after purchase you'd be able to buy more?"
On 12-11-15 9:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Wilder
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are there any other opinions on this matter? I would like to hear any
>> opposition that may exist before moving forward with drafting a policy
>> proposal.
>>
> Not necessarily opposed, but one reason for the existing language is: if you
> are at 90% of a /16, and your 3 month need is only for a /20, then you would
> still be at >80% immediately after getting your /20, without using a bit of
> it. If you have to use 80% (or even 50%) of all allocations, that eliminates
> that loophole.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
Forgot to CC: List. Sorry for the duplicate, Scott.
--
Ron Grant Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet Internet and Private Networking
[email protected] Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph: 604 737 2113 Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299 http://www.skywaywest.com
Sales, Support and Billing http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:01:19 -0500
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]
List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxuet-rebsns0dntcyl75ymfy2ssc4revdq1wyxaln...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Scott Leibrand
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Not necessarily opposed, but one reason for the existing
> language is: if you are at 90% of a /16, and your 3 month
> need is only for a /20, then you would still be at >80%
> immediately after getting your /20, without using a bit of it.
> If you have to use 80% (or even 50%) of all allocations,
> that eliminates that loophole.
Do you have to use 80% on all allocations? Or just the most recent one?
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 89, Issue 7
****************************************
