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 resource scarcity, before technical improvements such as unnumbered interfaces, before host-based virtual hosting, and /31s as point to point links. And a greater utilization requirement may slow exhaustion. The number allows plenty of extra wiggle-room luxury, in addition to the occasional oddball patch which can't be allocated even in an efficient planned address allocation strategy, which the free resources don't exist for, any longer. 80% in the aggregate criterion is unfairly strict against resource holders that have a small total allocation size. And unfairly lenient against resource holders that have a large total allocation size. And removing the per-allocation utilization requirement would serve to exacerbate this problem. For example, under the current rules a holder of a /10 equivalent, can call their existing allocations "efficiently utilized", even if there are most recent allocation, an entire contiguous /20s has been completely untouched and unused. Whereas the resource holder that has a /20, cannot have a single /23's worth untouched. -- -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.
