[ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)

 
Friends

>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. . 

Regards

German Valdez
Policy and External Relations Manager
LACNIC

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at 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 at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at 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 at apnic.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at 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 at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>