Agreed re Baltimore Thanks, Jeff On Jun 16, 2014 2:13 PM, "David Huberman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I believe we should discuss in Baltimore in front of a more substantial > audience. There are by enough people participating here, in my opinion, for > any "sense of the room" to make sense. > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf > of Andrew Dul <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:53:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating > utilization ARIN-2014-17 > > Hello, > > I sent a longer summary of where this policy discussion is last week, > I've pasted a link below to that message in the archive. > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-June/028654.html > > In general, I would say that this draft policy is stalled at this > point. The 80% utilization policy underpins a large majority of the > current policies and thus is a substantial change. There have been a > few people who have voiced their support, but not enough that I believe > would allow this policy to move forward as a recommended draft at this > point. > > I would also point out that they current policy also constrains larger > providers but in a different way as ARIN is now more closely enforcing > the current policy of "efficiently utilized all previous allocations" > (4.2.4.1) as noted during the NANOG PPC. > > Leif, I don't think there is an easy scaling algorithm to apply to > utilization. The problem with a scaling algorithm is it likely will be > perceived as "unfair" by organizations on one side of the size > continuum. (We tried HD ratio for v6 and that was not easily > understood, and lead to lots of confusion.) > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > On 6/13/2014 4:33 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > > I was really hoping somebody would suggest, perhaps, some sort > > of easy-to-apply scaling algorithm so that it makes it easier for > > the smaller guys to get the space they need, but harder for the bigger > > guys to game the system. > > > > I'm sure there's some sort of curve that fits, but my advanced maths > > are limited to Pythagoras. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:41 PM > > To: Tim Gimmel > > Cc: [email protected] List > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating > utilization > > > > Tim, > > > > I am also uncertain of the current status but would like to see some > progress. > > > > Thanks, Jeff > > > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Tim Gimmel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I not really sure where this policy discussion is at the moment, but I > want to assert the current method places a strain on small carriers just > trying to do business. We are in the process of implementing IPv6, but is > will be a long journey. > >> Overall I am way past 80% utilization, but because my last allocation > (and this is based on actual usage, not just what has been 'swiped') has > not yet reached 80% we are practically stymied. > >> > >> Tim's 2 cents! > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> Tim Gimmel > >> Metronet | Senior Network Engineer > >> 3701 Communications Way | Evansville, IN 47715 > >> Office: 812.456.4750 > >> www.MetronetInc.com > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > >>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:14 PM > >>> To: Jeffrey Lyon > >>> Cc: [email protected] List > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating > >>> utilization > >>> > >>> While I support Jeffry's proposal for changing the calculation > >>> method, in terms of changing the threshold, I'd like to say that I > >>> really think it is time to stop trying to re-arrange the IPv4 deck > >>> chairs and get on board the IPv6 luxury liners that have come to > >>> rescue us from the sinking IPv4 ship. > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> On May 2, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, 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 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. > >>>> Jimmy, > >>>> > >>>> I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger > >>>> allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate). > >>>> > >>>> As a practical matter I believe these measures should be handled as > >>>> separate policy proposals. The current proposal should be limited > >>>> to the calculation method and perhaps you could write a new > >>>> proposal if you wanted to change the utilization threshold? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP > >>>> Fellow, 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. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > > > > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP > > Fellow, 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
