[address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tony Hain
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Thu Feb 23 02:55:33 CET 2006
Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make a significant difference? > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rene Wilhelm > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:44 PM > To: Geoff Huston > Cc: Randy Bush; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD- > ratio Proposal) > > > Hi Geoff, > > > I was also surprised by this number [46%] when I first saw it in the > output. > > Your number is higher, but the analysis I did also showed HD ratio could > have a significant impact on the address space consumption. > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html > posted on this list some weeks ago) > > Looking at all invidual allocations done by RIPE NCC between 2003 and > 2006, > we modelled the observed growth to a policy which used HDR 0.96 instead > of 80% utilisation as the criterium for an LIR to be eligible to receive > an > additional allocation. Starting 1/1/2003 and stepping through time the > simulation thus determined the address space held by each LIR on a day by > day basis. By 1/1/2006 this resulted in some 60 million (about 30% of > the total) more addresses allocated compared to what we actually had > handed out under the 80% rule. > > Reading your report, I believe one of the reasons our numbers differ > is that you are simulating 10,000 allocations; my analysis only looked at > the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006. Since the effects of > HD ratio are progressive, the more allocations you simulate, the higher > the > relative increase in address space consumption becomes. > > > > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a > > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption > > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from > uniform > > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. > > To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate > what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is? > i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they > spread out a lot? > > > > A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy > proposal > > by all 5 RIRs. > > From http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html > I understand ARIN already abandoned two proposals to use HD ratio for > IPv4 allocations (nrs. 2004-2 and 2003-10). > > Regards, > > -- Rene > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-= > Rene Wilhelm RIPE Network Coordination Centre > Email: wilhelm at ripe.net Amsterdam, the Netherlands > Phone: +31 20 535 4417 Fax: +31 20 535 4445 > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]