Would simply changing 30 days to 90 days be sufficient to address the issues being raised?
Owen > On May 27, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Under the 25% utilization across all assignments held, an end site with a /24 > with 253 hosts, a router, network and broadcast would be 100% utilized. They > could then waive their hands and say something about growth, and double to a > /23 (total) at 50% utilized, and double again to a /22 (total) at 25% > utilization? > > My impression of the 25% requirement is to have some real world measure to > off set a pure future looking indisputable claim. > > My example attempted to replace the real world measure with some real > commitment to have in process things that need IPs that can be counted (but > won't necessarily have the IP in service in 30 days). > > I don't know how you avoid hand wavyness for initial allocation, or make slow > start work in a transfer world. > > ___Jason > >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Imagine a case were an end user has a real commitment to deploy five new >> > offices each with ~210 employees (each employee with a single desktop) over >> > the next quarter. Office space is leased, computers are bought, >> > construction is on going for all five sites, and one site is scheduled to >> > go >> > live in 45 days, 250 offers have been extended for the first site, 50 have >> > accepted, another 200 candidates are in the interview pipeline for the >> > other >> > two sites with a scheduled go live date in the next 60 days. >> > >> > Based on this growth rate, it is likely that 20 sites with approximately >> > 210 >> > employees (and desktops) each will be deployed in the next 12 months. >> > >> > It is anticipated that it will take 45 days to get the 210 computers at the >> > new site physically setup on desks, and connected to a working LAN, with >> > working Internet access. >> > >> > The organization has on hand enough equipment to number 82% of five /24s. >> > With a real one year projection based on past growth for filling 82% of >> > twenty /24s over the next year. >> > >> > One would think this should be sufficient justification for at least a /21 >> > (five /24s round up to eight /24s or a /21) with a real commitment already >> > underway to use these addresses. Once in service more than 50% of a /21 >> > will be in use. >> > >> > There are also a projection for a total of twenty /24s at 82% utilization >> > or >> > 51% of >> > /19 over the next year. >> > >> > This sounds like it should be a good justification for a /20 or a /19. >> > >> > I think the 25% requirement in 30 days is unreasonable, especially when an >> > organization is already committed but the work will take longer than 30 >> > days. But 50% of a purely future looking projection is not strong enough. >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> For the sake of the argument, I accept your example in whole. >> >> That organization did not appear out of thin air, suddenly hire up >> hundreds of staff and build a bunch of locations. Large organizations >> don't magically spring into being. They already had a substantial >> operation and its infrastructure. Changing the 25% 30-day requirement >> to apply in aggregate across all direct assignments held by the >> organization would resolve the problem here quite effectively. >> >> I also note that the office space is leased and being paid for while >> construction is ongoing. Given the lead time for data circuits, are >> not those contracts let as well? >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
