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 to request space. It is very difficult to make sure every single small allocation is justified to 80% vs. doing the same if you only had one or two very large allocations. What happens in practice is that a smaller organization with many small allocations (eg. /21 and /22) will have to individually justify every assignment which may put their utilization at 90%+ before they're allowed to request space where a larger organization will never run into this problem.
This is something I brought up in 2011 (iirc). 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 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 easier for transfers once the free > pool is exhausted? I would support the latter, but not the former. > > -Scott > > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 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 in aggregate. For example, if an >> organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 100% and the >> fourth utilized at 75%, that request would be denied. This is a bit >> out of balance as an organization with a single /20 utilized at 80% >> would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to request >> additional space. >> >> The last time this was discussed it sounded as if the community would >> support a policy proposal to change this calculation to be considered >> in aggregate vs. per assignment. Does this remain the case? >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP >> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications >> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com | skype: >> blacklotus.net >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > Scott -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP Fellow, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.