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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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
Thu Feb 23 04:04:02 CET 2006
At 12:55 PM 23/02/2006, Tony Hain wrote: >Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make >a significant difference? Good question... Heres a table of the ratio of total address allocations using the RIPE NCC data, comparing the address consumption under the current 80% utilization criteria with a number of values for an HD Ratio criteria. I've included the mean standard deviation to give you a sense of the stability of these results. (Again, the technique here is to conduct an "experiment" consisting of 1000 separate simulations of a batch of 10,000 allocations, and the "result" is the ratio of the address space allocated under an HD Ratio framework, as compared to the same simulated end use populations being served under the current fixed 80% criteria) (fixed width font may help here) HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 regards, Geoff
- 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 ]