[ppml] RIPE 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Wed Feb 22 16:52:35 EST 2006
to continue the thread
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:00:43 -1000
> I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the
> impacts of the proposal.
>
> ...
>
> From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of
> 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to
> increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80%
> utilization allocation policy framework.
YIKES!!!!
and, aside from that, how was the play, mrs. lincoln?
randy
-----
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:59:02 +1100
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments
(HD-ratio Proposal)
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
At 04:00 AM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the
> > impacts of the proposal.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of
> > 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to
> > increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80%
> > utilization allocation policy framework.
>
>YIKES!!!!
>
>and, aside from that, how was the play, mrs. lincoln?
I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output.
Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified
effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased
address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only
account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses.
The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime
- /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased address
consumption.
Here's the table that shows the shifts when using the HD Ratio
(fixed width font will help here)
Prefix RIPE NCC Equivalent
Allocations Allocations
2000-2006 0.96 HD
(Relative %) (Relative %)
/24 23.04 23.23
/23 12.09 11.37
/22 8.16 7.87
/21 4.76 4.85
/20 19.64 16.33
/19 14.97 15.21
/18 6.85 8.58
/17 3.56 4.39
/16 4.36 3.88
/15 1.18 2.39
/14 0.66 0.86
/13 0.38 0.5
/12 0.18 0.28
/11 0.13 0.15
/10 0.03 0.09
/9 0 0.02
/8 0 0
Power of Address Address
Difference Relative Relative Relative
2 Span Span Difference Address Address
Actual HDR Span Span
Actual HDR
8 5898 5947 49 0% 0% 0%
9 6190 5821 -369 0% 0% 0%
10 8356 8059 -297 0% 0% 0%
11 9748 9933 184 0% 1% 0%
12 80445 66888 -13558 -2% 4% 2%
13 122634 124600 1966 0% 7% 5%
14 112230 140575 28344 3% 6% 5%
15 116654 143852 27197 3% 6% 5%
16 285737 254280 -31457 -4% 15% 9%
17 154665 313262 158597 19% 8% 12%
18 173015 225444 52429 6% 9% 8%
19 199229 262144 62915 7% 11% 10%
20 188744 293601 104858 12% 10% 11%
21 272630 314573 41943 5% 15% 12%
22 125829 377487 251658 30% 7% 14%
23 0 167772 167772 20% 0% 6%
24 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 1862005.76 2714237.44 852231.68
--------
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments
(HD-ratio Proposal)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:35:26 -1000
> I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output.
>
> Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified
> effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased
> address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only
> account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses.
>
> The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime
> - /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased address
> consumption.
i.e., this is what the conservatives and smaller folk have been
intuiting all along, the big players get more than a fair (as we
think of it today) share and the small folk lose.
grrrrrrrr.
could we please add ppml at arin.net to the cc:s? thanks.
randy
-------
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:29:30 +1100
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments
(HD-ratio Proposal)
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
I should correct a typo in the note below.
Under the HD scheme /9 and /10 allocation will account for 0.11% of the
actual allocations, not 1% as I said below. This correction probably
amplifies the comment that its the small number of large allocations that
are critical in assessing the total impact of the HD Ratio framework.
thanks,
Geoff
>I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output.
>
>Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified
>effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased
>address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only
>account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses.
>
>The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime
>- /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased
>address consumption.
-30-
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list