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 (Cameron Byrne)
2. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (George Herbert)
3. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Scott Leibrand)
4. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Jimmy Hess)
5. Re: Utilization policy is not aggregate (Jeffrey Lyon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:38:57 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <[email protected]>
To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]
List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<CAD6AjGSQWrJvw5jOcv=_rcfryb1uj84+qkmrvmueptqu1ww...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Nov 16, 2012 7:56 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I agree with the change. Fairness needs to prevail.
>
+1
CB
Sent from ipv6-only android
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 12:45 AM, "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?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20121116/734e01fb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:53:09 -0800
From: George Herbert <[email protected]>
To: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]
List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<CAK__KzsG=ykigmnh2-+6gcnh_nsmvvsiptnuv_sv_7n_mjc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2012 7:56 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the change. Fairness needs to prevail.
>>
>
> +1
>
> CB
Also agree.
I do not want to introduce new methods to game the system, but this
seems to me to be Jeffrey Lyon has quite legitimately found an
inadvertent goof in the way the prior policy was written, and the
request and suggestions for how to change the policy seem reasonable
and responsible, of general interest and not just an attempt to game
the system for his own benefit. I can easily see this affecting many
others.
Scott Leibrand's 4.1.8 / 1 block every 3 months approach also seems
reasonable and responsible.
Perhaps there's a hidden gotcha, but I am not seeing it so far.
--
-george william herbert
[email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:55:10 -0800
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: George Herbert <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]
List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<CAGkMwz5OiWO6Ak_G7dOi=uzsrdwe3vrcb8tu+n7qmbehpkx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2012 7:56 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with the change. Fairness needs to prevail.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > CB
>
> Also agree.
>
> I do not want to introduce new methods to game the system, but this
> seems to me to be Jeffrey Lyon has quite legitimately found an
> inadvertent goof in the way the prior policy was written, and the
> request and suggestions for how to change the policy seem reasonable
> and responsible, of general interest and not just an attempt to game
> the system for his own benefit. I can easily see this affecting many
> others.
>
> Scott Leibrand's 4.1.8 / 1 block every 3 months approach also seems
> reasonable and responsible.
>
To be clear, that's already in existing policy, so no change is required
there.
-Scott
>
> Perhaps there's a hidden gotcha, but I am not seeing it so far.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20121116/d608f1d3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:22:53 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <[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:
<caaawwbwfavxtqjwhp2rsu0ojpdj_zn+7u4djo6eyvo9z90h...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 11/15/12, 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
exactly.... and It would not be favorable to have a measure of
utilization that allowed an organization to fail to efficiently
utilize each of the allocations they obtain, before requesting
another.
It's essentially like saying "You used your previous allocation _SO_
efficiently, that we will give you a bonus, and let you not use the
next allocation so efficiently, and still obtain more resources."
Instead it should just be "lesson learned" for the applicant; if
you ever actually exceed 80% utilization, stop allocating from that
block, start allocating from the new one, and there is no need to
change policy.
(Except to increase the utilization requirement to a higher value);
E.g. 80% utilization on the preceding allocation, and 99%
utilization on allocations that preceded it..
The applicant who got the larger allocation and achieved the same
overall percentage of utilization, had to meet a larger need
requirement to obtain that allocation. And they also had to
allocate more number resources after actually obtaining the
allocation, to be allocated the next one.
> Scott
--
-JH
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:27:16 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lyon <[email protected]>
To: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Utilization policy is not aggregate
Message-ID:
<CACrmG8fPQRm8ddDuOQ1HEk8=rnW=svgx6g9v4ohyzsjjb5l...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/15/12, 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
>
> exactly.... and It would not be favorable to have a measure of
> utilization that allowed an organization to fail to efficiently
> utilize each of the allocations they obtain, before requesting
> another.
>
> It's essentially like saying "You used your previous allocation _SO_
> efficiently, that we will give you a bonus, and let you not use the
> next allocation so efficiently, and still obtain more resources."
>
> Instead it should just be "lesson learned" for the applicant; if
> you ever actually exceed 80% utilization, stop allocating from that
> block, start allocating from the new one, and there is no need to
> change policy.
>
> (Except to increase the utilization requirement to a higher value);
> E.g. 80% utilization on the preceding allocation, and 99%
> utilization on allocations that preceded it..
>
>
> The applicant who got the larger allocation and achieved the same
> overall percentage of utilization, had to meet a larger need
> requirement to obtain that allocation. And they also had to
> allocate more number resources after actually obtaining the
> allocation, to be allocated the next one.
>
>> Scott
> --
> -JH
Jimmy,
At the risk of getting off on a tangent, the only reason we ended up
with 2 x /21 vs. 1 x /20 is that we have been extremely stingy with IP
space where our competitors have been handing them out like candy. At
one point we were charging $30/mo, per IP in order to conserve space.
We were able to survive on a single /21 for 4 years as a result. One
of our competitors who does not follow the same best practices has an
aggregate /16 or so.
The lesson i've learned is that wasteful companies receive
preferential treatment under current policies.
--
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] | skype: blacklotus.net
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9
****************************************
