[ppml] Background info for HD ratio proposal

[Charles Scott]

Michael:

I'm sorry, but I keep having problems grasping the logic of this policy. 
What bothers me the most is that it's based on a concept that has some 
merit for address utilization but for which there has not been any 
compelling evidence that it has merit for address allocation. I do
accept the problems with utilizing address space in a hierarchical manner 
and the need to do that with IP address space (*) but am concerned that 
extrapolating that to address allocation without any compelling logic is 
flawed. I would therefore support this policy if it specifically applied 
to end-user address utilization only, but am reluctant to support any 
broader scope. 

Chuck Scott

* I still think that since address utilization efficiency can be
significantly improved by overlaying a good initial deployment plan with
other address space to fill in areas where address needs expand more than
planned without significant concern for internal routing tables. The
concept of efficiency is a pervasive thread through much existing ARIN
policy and should always be a consideration of any policy change. 
Regardless, address utilization efficiency is different from address 
allocation efficiency.



On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> Policy Proposal 2004-2 proposes that we change the 80% threshold 
> for additional IPv4 address allocations to a sliding scale 
> formula based on the same type of Host Density (HD) Ratio as 
> we currently use for IPv6 allocations. The formal policy proposal 
> is on the ARIN site http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_2.html
> and is up for a vote at the Vancouver meeting.
.
.
.