[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
Thomas Narten
narten at us.ibm.com
Tue May 10 14:08:02 EDT 2005
- Previous message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi Leo. > I have wondered why we don't use a flat measurement as we already > do, simply relaxed to fit the additional v6 "free use of IP > addresses". One theory is that larger sites have multiple levels of hierarchy. At the lower levels of the hierarchy, one can presumably flat route, in which case high densities are achievable. But if you have a hierarchy (with aggregation), each level in the heirarchy will have a level of inherent inefficiency, and the total inefficiency is multiplicative. E.g., 80% utilization at level one combined with 80% utilization at the next level up is only 64% utilization when multiplied together. One of the arguments being made for moving the HD ratio threshhold upward is that a ratio of .8 is more in line with something like 12 levels of heirarchy in the network, a level that doesn't seem in line with reality. Thomas
- Previous message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list