Re: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies(simplifi
Hi Owen,
We have intensive interest in prop-098, generally speaking, we support the idea of
more generous IPv6 allocations policy, and nibble boundary allocation etc.
We have a few questions about the proposal:
1. About Provider Allocation Unit:
It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by the provider.
Q1: Is the size of the PAU defined by the provider? Do they need to justify the size?
2. About End site:
It is defined as a single structure or service delivery address
Q2: When it comes to mobile IP services, Is the 'end site' applied to
a PDA or Cell phone devices, a personal area network (PAN), an Access Point,
or a POP?
3. Section 4.2: ......5 years of projected customer
utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one
provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization.
Q3: Does this assume each customer end-site will be allocated one same size PAU?
4. Section 5.1 subsequent allocation criteria:
- 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR
- One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization......
there are no available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current
allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
Q4: How to justify 'there are no available blocks of sufficient size', specifically
when the LIR has sparsely assigned 160 * /40 from a /32, now one of the /40 site becomes full,
and no more contiguous /40 left, will this be considered meet the criteria.
5. Section 2.4. The HD ratio ......Using nibble-boundaries and rounding up actually yields similar
results with simpler math.
Q5: How to understand 'nibble-boundaries round up' will have the similiar results with HD?
With a consistent 75% usage and unpredictable 1-8 times rounding up, my humble feeling is
the utilization is unpredictable, but the HD-ratio requirement is predictable.
Prefix HD require Utlization:
----------------------------
/32 36.9%
/28 31.2%
/24 26.4%
/20 22.4%
In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more relax than HD requirement
in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.
Q6: Does this proposal remove HD-ratio criteria completely?
Regards
Terence