[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Apr 26 20:04:45 CEST 2005
On 25-apr-2005, at 8:55, Guido Roeskens wrote: >> What are you proposing? RFC 3194 is a descriptive RFC, it doesn't >> proscribe anything. What kind of HD ratio would you want to apply >> to IPv4 allocations? > The proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96" >> Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that >> isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%. > As you see the HD Ratio propsed is much higher but > would help LIR's with bigger allocations to justify > their IP usage. Ah, but the crucial question then becomes: what size allocation are these LIRs going to receive? For a /16 a HD ratio of 96% means 42k out of 66k addresses must be used = 64% (where k = 1000), but for a / 12 it means 602k out of 1049k = 57% and for a /8 8.6M out of 16.8M = 51%. So this means that if this proposal is accepted, it's important for the NCC to allocate the smallest possible blocks, and certainly not blocks of a million addresses or more, which seems to be the latest trend that nobody in the know seems to want to comment on. Also, it seems counter-intuitive that the more addreses you have, the more you're going to waste. Sure, a big ISP may have one or even two more aggregation levels than a small one, but it's easier to reroute part of 8.2M unused addresses to somewhere else in your network than some of 20 unused addresses as would happen in a very small network.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]