I not really sure where this policy discussion is at the moment, but I want to assert the current method places a strain on small carriers just trying to do business. We are in the process of implementing IPv6, but is will be a long journey. Overall I am way past 80% utilization, but because my last allocation (and this is based on actual usage, not just what has been 'swiped') has not yet reached 80% we are practically stymied.
Tim's 2 cents! Tim Tim Gimmel Metronet | Senior Network Engineer 3701 Communications Way | Evansville, IN 47715 Office: 812.456.4750 www.MetronetInc.com > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:14 PM > To: Jeffrey Lyon > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating > utilization > > While I support Jeffry's proposal for changing the calculation method, in > terms of changing the threshold, I'd like to say that I really think it is > time to stop trying to re-arrange the IPv4 deck chairs and get on board > the IPv6 luxury liners that have come to rescue us from the sinking IPv4 > ship. > > Owen > > On May 2, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net> > wrote: > > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos <j...@egh.com> wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2 May 2014, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> > >>> I think 95% is too high, if the previous example of 3 /24's at 100% > >>> and > >>> 1 /24 at 75% is realistic. That works out to 93.75% aggregate > >>> utilization, not quite reaching the bar, so 90% might be a better > threshold. > >> > >> For 3 /24s yes. The difficulty here, is trying to pick a single > >> utilization proportion that works regardless of the aggregate > >> allocation size, to allow for the loss of the oddball /26 or /27 that > >> can neither be returned nor reused, perhaps another method is in > >> order than presuming a single aggregate utilization criterion is > >> the most proper. > >> > >> > >> The more resources you are allocated, the more opportunity to make > >> your resource allocation efficient. By the time you get down to a > >> /26, an entire /24 is less than 0.4%. > >> > >> Aggregate Resources Allocated Required Aggregate > >> Utilization criterion > >> more than a /25 75% > >> more than a /22, 80% > >> more than a /20 85% > >> more than a /19 90% > >> more than a /18 95% > >> more than a /17 97% > >> more than a /16 98% > >> more than a /15 99% > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> OTOH, /24's are pretty small and maybe that example was just for > >>> illustration. If people really in this situation have much larger > >>> allocations, they would be easier to slice and dice and thus use > >>> (relatively) efficiently. 75% of a /24 leaves just 64 addresses (a > >>> /26) unused, which even if contiguous are hard to redeploy for some > >>> other use. 75% of a /16 would leave 16384 unused addresses, which > could be utilized much more easily. > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally, I don't much care since my company has its /24, and > >>> that's probably all the IPv4 we'll ever need :-) > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> John Santos > >>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > >>> 781-861-0670 ext 539 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -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. > > > > Jimmy, > > > > I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger > > allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate). > > > > As a practical matter I believe these measures should be handled as > > separate policy proposals. The current proposal should be limited to > > the calculation method and perhaps you could write a new proposal if > > you wanted to change the utilization threshold? > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.