Support aggregate. Also support tiered aggregate changes, although I feel the effort is unnecessary at this point, and would prefer to see them as separate proposals.
-Blake On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-p...@panix.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:05:06PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brett Frankenberger >> <rbf+arin-p...@panix.com> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> > I support the proposal. >> >> You assert both should be OK. I assert neither should be OK, >> favoring the more rigorous justification criterion as better >> stewardship. > > Actually, I assert that both should be the same. I agree with Jeff's > point that, for example, 32 /21s are the same whether you got them at > one time as part of a /16 or on 8 separate occasions as part of 8 > separate /19s ... and that we should fix that, and, separately, if > there are problems with the utilization requirement (for example, if > 80% is not stringent enough) that should be handled separately. > >> And whether each individual allocation has to be utilized or not, the >> calculation method, is inherently entangled with the utilization >> criterion. >> >> It may be more work (more required renumbering or greater cost / more >> local router entries required) to efficiently utilize the /21 hidden >> inside the /16, in case this is not a contiguous /21, but a >> fragmented group of a few hundred /28s and /27s spread around the >> entire /16 due to lots of number releases over time, or an >> ineffective allocation plan. > > Well, sure. And perhaps policy should take into consideration not only > the utilization percentage, but also the distribution of the unused > space. For a number of reasons, I disagree with that, but my point in > this thread is that it's separate from question of whether or not we > should calculate utilization differently for two organizations that > have exactly the same amount of address space and exactly the same > utilization, when one org got its address space as a smaller number of > larger blocks, and the other got its space as a larger number of > smaller blocks. > > If the right thing to do is to count smaller blocks of unused space > differently from larger blocks of unused space, that should be a > separate proposal. > > (Note that the contiguous free /21 is not the common case here. The > more common case that is relevant to the proposal at hand here would be > the most recently assigned space being 50% or so utilized -- and > perhaps as fragmented as you describe above -- while all space that the > organization has been allocated, in aggregate, is well over 80% > utilized.) > > -- 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. _______________________________________________ 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.