j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
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. .
German Valdez Policy and External Relations Manager LACNIC
-----Mensaje original----- De: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] En nombre de Davis, Terry L Enviado el: Jueves, 23 de Febrero de 2006 01:52 p.m. Para: Geoff Huston; Randy Bush CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Asunto: RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
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:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com 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?
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.
PPML mailing list PPML@arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml