From LACNIC we have been following closely the discussion of this proposal.
This proposal was shared in LACNIC community, since then we have received
comments from members in LAC region. The comments in general show a concern
about the possibility that the adoption of this policy in other regions may
cause an excesive consume of IP addresses. The outcome of this would produce
a bigger disparity and unfairness in the distribution of address space among
the regions.
It is not our intention to influence in the policy in other regions, however
we call for caution and we exhort that all the elements involved be
thoroughly examined and also those potential consequences in other regions
be considered. .
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] En nombre de Davis, Terry L
Enviado el: Jueves, 23 de Febrero de 2006 01:52 p.m.
Para: Geoff Huston; Randy Bush
CC: ppml@arin.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net; sig-policy@apnic.net
Asunto: RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call
for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
Geoff/Randy
Just as an aside, efficiency targets probably won't work when
applied to mobile networks. Most large global mobile (ships
& planes) platforms won't use but a much smaller fraction of
the assignment. /24 is the smallest workable unit for global
movement with any currently defined schemes.
Localized mobility (trains/ferries/trucking) within a small
geographical area (or even possibly even a region) may be
able to get higher efficiencies depending on strategy/architecture.
Take care
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih@apnic.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: ppml@arin.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net; sig-policy@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call
for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote:
HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev
0.98 1.04868 0.02285
0.97 1.25899 0.03363
0.96 1.45854 0.03371
0.95 1.63073 0.02848
0.94 1.78332 0.01859
and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk?
randy
I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not
wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll
make this my last posting on this topic today.
An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than
the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a
/16, and lower than 80% for
allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98
implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.)
As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and
6,554
numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under
an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use
population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a
required address efficiency level of 84% on this address
block in order to qualify for a further address allocation.
The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80%
efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80%
for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96
impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the
smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be
easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course.
regards,
Geoff
PPML mailing list
PPML@arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
