I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise, opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.
Best, -M< On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: > No, but I think it will be before any new policy proposal moving at "normal" speed takes effect. (The /24 minimum allocation size might take effect before then. If so, that will probably accelerate runout further.) > > If you think (as I do) that this policy change would still be useful after runout when most requests result in a transfer, you could probably sidestep a lot of potential opposition by specifying that it would only go into effect after free pool runout, or would only affect transfers. > > Scott > >> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Jeffrey Lyon >> <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: >> >> Scott, >> >> Also, we're already in Phase 4, so isn't it fair to say that the free >> pool is essentially exhausted? >> >> Thanks, Jeff >> >>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Scott Leibrand >>> <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: >>> This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use to >>> help prevent a run on the remaining free pool from organizations with large >>> quantities of existing space. >>> >>> Are you trying to change this before free pool runout, or are you concerned >>> with making needs justification a bit easier for transfers once the free >>> pool is exhausted? I would support the latter, but not the former. >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon >>> <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Friends, Colleagues, >>>> >>>> A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the >>>> utilization requirement for new requests is being calculated on a per >>>> allocation basis rather than in aggregate. For example, if an >>>> organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 100% and the >>>> fourth utilized at 75%, that request would be denied. This is a bit >>>> out of balance as an organization with a single /20 utilized at 80% >>>> would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to request >>>> additional space. >>>> >>>> The last time this was discussed it sounded as if the community would >>>> support a policy proposal to change this calculation to be considered >>>> in aggregate vs. per assignment. Does this remain the case? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- >>>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP >>>> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications >>>> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] <javascript:;>| >>>> skype: >>>> blacklotus.net >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <javascript:;> ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Scott >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP >> Fellow, Black Lotus Communications >> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] <javascript:;> | skype: blacklotus.net > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <javascript:;>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> 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.
