[address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)

Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make
a significant difference? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rene Wilhelm
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:44 PM
> To: Geoff Huston
> Cc: Randy Bush; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-
> ratio Proposal)
> 
> 
> Hi Geoff,
> 
> > I was also surprised by this number [46%] when I first saw it in the
> output.
> 
> Your number is higher, but the analysis I did also showed HD ratio could
> have a significant impact on the address space consumption.
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html
>  posted on this list some weeks ago)
> 
> Looking at all invidual allocations done by RIPE NCC between 2003 and
> 2006,
> we modelled the observed growth to a policy which used HDR 0.96 instead
> of 80% utilisation as the criterium for an LIR to be eligible to receive
> an
> additional allocation.  Starting 1/1/2003 and stepping through time the
> simulation thus determined the address space held by each LIR on a day by
> day basis.  By 1/1/2006 this resulted in some 60 million (about 30% of
> the total) more addresses allocated compared to what we actually had
> handed out under the 80% rule.
> 
> Reading your report, I believe one of the reasons our numbers differ
> is that you are simulating 10,000 allocations; my analysis only looked at
> the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006. Since the effects of
> HD ratio are progressive, the more allocations you simulate, the higher
> the
> relative increase in address space consumption becomes.
> 
> 
> > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a
> > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption
> > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from
> uniform
> > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses.
> 
> To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate
> what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is?
> i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they
> spread out a lot?
> 
> 
> > A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy
> proposal
> > by all 5 RIRs.
> 
> From http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html
> I understand ARIN already abandoned two proposals to use HD ratio for
> IPv4 allocations (nrs. 2004-2 and 2003-10).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Rene
> 
> 
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=
> Rene Wilhelm	        	       RIPE Network Coordination Centre
> Email: wilhelm at ripe.net 	       Amsterdam, the Netherlands
> Phone: +31 20 535 4417		       Fax: +31 20 535 4445
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=