[ppml] HD Ratio Applied to IPv4

[Charles Scott]

Kevin:
  I'm sorry, I'm just not getting this. It would seem that any particular
level of assignment needs to stand on it's own. Why then would more levels
of assignment below a particular level make that one level more
challenging to manage.
  Also, the larger the assignment, the larger 20% of the assignment
becomes, so it would seem to be easier to manage larger size blocks unless
the size of the sub-assignments for some reason become proportionately 
lager relative to the size of the total block as one manages larger and 
larger blocks.
  I don't say the above rhetorically. If there's a good reason to make
this kind of adjustment then it should be done. But when we're looking at
a potential for significantly large additions of wasted (unassigned) space
added to the equation, there should be darn'd good reason for making the
change, particularly when it adds an additional level of confusion to the
process.

Chuck




On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:

> 
> > APNIC is looking at applying the HD Ratio system to IPv4 allocations. 
> > Attached is their draft document discussing the idea.  I'm curious what 
> > people in the ARIN region think of the idea.
> 
> The current situation, where 80% utilization is required for any size
> block, is more challenging when you have multiple levels of assignment
> downstream, subdividing the block, wasting boundary addresses, making it
> difficult to ensure that each assignment is well-utilized, etc.
> 
> The AD-Ratio idea seems to reverse the situation.  Now things are smooth
> for networks with multiple levels of assignment, but waaaay too loose for
> simpler networks.  A company which has a /17, for example, and uses it
> entirely for their own networking, can now get new allocations after only
> 70.22% utilization.  These companies (eg, datacenters, Web hosts, large
> workstation clusters, etc) have the best opportunity for utilization
> nearing 99%.  This effectively gives those companies less reason to be
> efficient.
> 
> Is there any way to distinguish the two scenarios usefully and adjust the
> idea accordingly?
> 
> Kevin
>