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]/
[ppml] [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-ration Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Thu Feb 23 17:51:34 CET 2006
Geoff/Randy Just as an aside, efficiency targets probably won't work when applied to mobile networks. Most large global mobile (ships & planes) platforms won't use but a much smaller fraction of the assignment. /24 is the smallest workable unit for global movement with any currently defined schemes. Localized mobility (trains/ferries/trucking) within a small geographical area (or even possibly even a region) may be able to get higher efficiencies depending on strategy/architecture. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at apnic.net Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > 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 > >and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? > >randy I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll make this my last posting on this topic today. An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a /16, and lower than 80% for allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98 implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.) As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and 6,554 numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a required address efficiency level of 84% on this address block in order to qualify for a further address allocation. The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80% efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80% for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96 impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course. regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 Last Call for Comments (HD-ration Proposal)
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]