[ppml] Host-Density Ratio
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Fri Feb 6 09:36:48 EST 2004
- Previous message: [ppml] Deadline for Policy Proposals
- Next message: [ppml] Host-Density Ratio
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
In a few days I will be submitting a formal proposal for a policy which adopts the host-density ratio for IPv4 allocations to replace the current fixed 80% utilization rate. At the last meeting, there was a lot of confusion over the meaning and complexity of the H-D ratio and I hope to clarify things much more this time, both before and during the meeting. In any case, I welcome comments on my proposed wording for the policy which is slightly changed from last time. 1. All requests for additional IPv4 address space shall require the efficient utilization of the sum total of all existing allocations including all space reassigned to customers, if any. 2. The HD(Host Density) ratio of the sum total of all previous allocations shall be greater than or equal to .966 and the HD ratio of the most recent allocation shall be greater than or equal to .930 in order to receive additional space. 3. The HD ratio is calculated as log10(utilized IPv4 addresses)/log10(total addresses in all previous allocations). In this formula, log10 refers to the base 10 logarithm. Rather than go into detailed explanations at this point, I will just give you three URLs that explain the concepts in a lot more detail Original IPv6 idea http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html Paul Wilson's APNIC proposal http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/msg00000.html and his APNIC 16 presentation http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/policy/addpol-pres-wilson-hd-ratio.pdf At the APNIC policy meeting there was a consensus in favor of the HD ratio but people felt it should be discussed more broadly, both in other RIR regions and within the APNIC countries. In particular, I am considering dropping point number 1 since it is supposed to be already part of the IPv4 policy. Personally, I think that adding in "the sum total" makes the statement more explicit than the existing one, but I could be convinced that it is unnecessary. Point 3 seems to be rather straightforward and uncontroversial That leaves point number 2. Does anyone see any flaws in this? --Michael Dillon ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dillon Capacity Planning, Prescot St., London, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: michael.dillon at radianz.com Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030
- Previous message: [ppml] Deadline for Policy Proposals
- Next message: [ppml] Host-Density Ratio
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list