to Pythagoras.
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:41 PM
To: Tim Gimmel
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization
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
: [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
tim.gim...@metronetinc.com
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:14 PM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating
utilization
While I
]
On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:14 PM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net 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
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:49 AM
Friends, Colleagues,
A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the
utilization requirement for new
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Leif Sawyer lsaw...@gci.com wrote:
On behalf of myself, I support this proposal.
On behalf of my company, which finds itself in the position
of 8 large allocations above 93% and 1 small allocation below the 80% mark,
I support this proposal.
I believe there
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos j...@egh.com 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
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com 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.
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
Jimmy,
I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger
allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate).
The essence of it is, that the 80% utilization criterion is ancient,
and before
It would seem so.
Jeff
On May 3, 2014 10:38 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jeffrey,
Let's be clear without political
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brett Frankenberger
rbf+arin-p...@panix.com wrote:
Why is it not OK to get more space when you have an unused /21 that
is not adjacent to your other space, but it's OK to get more space if
you have an unused /21 hidden inside a /16?
I support the proposal.
You
I would support.
Owen
On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
Friends, Colleagues,
A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the
utilization requirement for new requests is being calculated on a per
allocation basis rather than
If this was actually drafted, I would too.
Doesn't seem like a bad thing.
On 5/1/2014 午後 03:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
I would support.
Owen
On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
Friends, Colleagues,
A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run
This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use
to help prevent a run on the remaining free pool from organizations with
large quantities of existing space.
Are you trying to change this before free pool runout, or are you concerned
with making needs justification a bit
Scott,
In my mind this does not have anything to do with free pool or
transfers, rather it is a measure to save time both for the applicant
and ARIN and to fix a disparity between how small organizations
request space versus large. Right now it is easier for organizations
with large allocations
Scott,
Also, we're already in Phase 4, so isn't it fair to say that the free
pool is essentially exhausted?
Thanks, Jeff
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use to
help prevent a run
Jeffrey,
While the idea is great, isn't ARIN supposed to already be implementing
this in one way?
i.e: You get one allocation, and until you can show 80% usage --
applying again generally does not get you anywhere.
Going by this, shouldn't all previous allocs (aggregated / per
No, but I think it will be before any new policy proposal moving at normal
speed takes effect. (The /24 minimum allocation size might take effect before
then. If so, that will probably accelerate runout further.)
If you think (as I do) that this policy change would still be useful after
runout
Paul,
The problem I see is in the manner of calculation. Right now each and
every allocation must be individually utilized at 80%. This means I
can have 3 x /22 utilized at 100% and 1 x /22 at 79% and would not be
eligible for more space where an organization with 80% utilization on
a single /20
Scott,
How do we define free pool exhaustion? We're already at 1 x /8 and
RIPE has already stopped issuing new IPv4 space (not sure what APNIC
et al are up to) but the situation is dire enough that I feel we
should consider ourselves at the exhaustion point.
Thanks, Jeff
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at
I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise,
opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been
subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.
Best,
-M
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Martin,
I disagree that this proposal would in any way eliminate needs basis.
The intent is to make sure that all allocations are considered in
aggregate so that those requesting space only have to have 80%
utilization vs. 90%+ that happens in many cases where allocations are
considered
I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise,
opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been
subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.
Best,
-M
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
25 matches
Mail list logo
