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 should be both a per-allocation utilization minimum and an aggregate utilization criterion. I also suggest a step-up in the utilization requirement: the minimum utilization criterion to say you are using the space efficiently should be upped to 95% usage demonstrated, not 80%. It has been shown that such efficient utilization is possible and provides better conservation of IP address space. Conceivably the bar could be set at: Minimum 50% utilization of each previous allocation, and 95% utilization in the aggregate, both criteria to be met for eligibility to receive additional address space: then the problem of "one small allocation" inefficiently used is mitigated. While just an aggregate utilization criterion interesting. I don't believe a /16 resource holder should be able to obtain more address space, if they have a separate /21 or /20 allocation completely (or mostly) unused; it should either be used or returned, before another request. Justified needs means you efficiently utilize _all_ allocations, not just the last one you got, not just the allocations you feel like using efficiently. -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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.
