[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 17:14:47 CET 2006
Rene Wilhelm wrote: > > Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 > make > > a significant difference? > > I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). > > With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic > RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006. Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation rates? As I recall the .96 value was a rough fit from some simple calculations, so there is nothing that ties us to that. I realize it is probably a trial and error effort, but now that the models are built it should just be processing time to run through some numbers until the rate aligns. Tony
- 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 ]