This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Huston
gih at apnic.net
Wed Feb 22 21:59:02 CET 2006
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]