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 ]
Tony Hain
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Thu Feb 23 17:14:47 CET 2006
Rene Wilhelm wrote: > > Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 > make > > a significant difference? > > I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). > > With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic > RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006. Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation rates? As I recall the .96 value was a rough fit from some simple calculations, so there is nothing that ties us to that. I realize it is probably a trial and error effort, but now that the models are built it should just be processing time to run through some numbers until the rate aligns. Tony
- 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 ]