On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:10:13PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > 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.
Or they could just renumber some subnets out of the very heavily used /16 into the lightly used /21 and then be eligible for more space. Doing so would not violate policy, and their actual efficiency after that exercise would be exactly what it was before that exercise. But they'd be able to get more space. > Justified needs means you efficiently utilize _all_ allocations, not > just the last one you got, not just the allocations you feel like > using efficiently. That's arbitrary. The organization with a /16 and /21 effectively has 33 /21s. To get more space, it has to use the 33rd /21 efficiently, but gets to aggregate the other 32 /21s into a /16 for the efficient utilization calculation. Why are those 32 /21s special? Because they happen to be in the database as one /16 instead of 32 /21s?) Why is it not OK to get more space when you have an unused /21 that is not adjacent to your other space, but it's OK to get more space if you have an unused /21 hidden inside a /16? (Also, I don't agree with the "back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways in the snow" justification for maintaining the status quo.) I support the proposal. -- Brett _______________________________________________ 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.