On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos <[email protected]> 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 ([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.
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: [email protected] | skype: blacklotus.net _______________________________________________ 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.
