Yes it is. Are you expecting such a change to happen before or after? The recent fury of v4 policy seems geared towards sooner. I think a moratorium is in order except for transfer related policy at this juncture.
Best, -M< On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Why should entities get a break on a standard in existence and applied > to all for years? > > > > And why is tbe aggregate, in examples given, broken? ARIN already > applies that to some applicants. > > > > No support. > > > > Support post exhaustion. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 20:52, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 2 May 2014, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >>> > >>> I think 95% is too high, if the previous example of 3 /24's at 100% and > >>> 1 /24 at 75% is realistic. That works out to 93.75% aggregate > utilization, > >>> not quite reaching the bar, so 90% might be a better threshold. > >> > >> For 3 /24s yes. The difficulty here, is trying to pick a single > >> utilization proportion that works regardless of the aggregate > >> allocation size, to allow for the loss of the oddball /26 or /27 that > >> can neither be returned nor reused, perhaps another method is in > >> order than presuming a single aggregate utilization criterion is > >> the most proper. > >> > >> > >> The more resources you are allocated, the more opportunity to make > >> your resource allocation efficient. By the time you get down to a > >> /26, an entire /24 is less than 0.4%. > >> > >> Aggregate Resources Allocated Required Aggregate > >> Utilization criterion > >> more than a /25 75% > >> more than a /22, 80% > >> more than a /20 85% > >> more than a /19 90% > >> more than a /18 95% > >> more than a /17 97% > >> more than a /16 98% > >> more than a /15 99% > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> OTOH, /24's are pretty small and maybe that example was just for > >>> illustration. If people really in this situation have much larger > >>> allocations, they would be easier to slice and dice and thus use > (relatively) > >>> efficiently. 75% of a /24 leaves just 64 addresses (a /26) unused, > which > >>> even if contiguous are hard to redeploy for some other use. 75% of a > /16 > >>> would leave 16384 unused addresses, which could be utilized much more > easily. > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally, I don't much care since my company has its /24, and that's > >>> probably all the IPv4 we'll ever need :-) > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> John Santos > >>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > >>> 781-861-0670 ext 539 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -JH > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> t... but IPv4 is already exhausted? > > -- > Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP > Fellow, Black Lotus Communications > mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] <javascript:;> | > 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.
