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 when most requests result in a transfer, you could probably sidestep a lot of potential opposition by specifying that it would only go into effect after free pool runout, or would only affect transfers. Scott > On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net> wrote: > > 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 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.