[ppml] HD Ratio Applied to IPv4

[Charles Scott]

Kevin:
  Please read my response to Paul. Also note that the word "utilization"  
in this case seems to be confusing. In one case, utilization refers to the
relative amount of address space assigned, and in the other case the
relative number of individual address in use. The former relates to
assignments by providers, and the latter relates to end usage. When
clarified, there is no requirement by a provider to show a composite
percentage of individual addresses in use, only to show that a certain 
percentage of an allocation has been assigned and is justifiable.
  If anything should be proposed, it should be that ARIN be a bit more 
consistent with this terminology and come up with a term other than 
"utilization" for consumption of space through assignment so as to avoid 
confusing the term with end-user address utilzation. 

Chuck




On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:

> 
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html
> 
> It boils down to the fact that at each level of reassignment, there is
> waste and an inability to ensure the 80% utilization at each such level.
> That RFC is good reading, IMHO.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > For background on the HD ratio, including the justification of this approach
> > in preference to percentage-based utilisation measures, please see RFC3194.
> > 
> > Paul Wilson
> > APNIC
> > 
> > > Behalf Of 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...
>