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 22:29:30 CET 2006
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.
- 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 ]