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] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Dec 20 17:47:04 CET 2016
Hi, just a few bits of clarification... On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:30:13AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I???ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. Well, the reason for HD ratio is that a fixed utilization rate was seen as "too unflexible to accomodate aggregation loss on multiple hierarchies", especially in large networks - where HD ratio requires FAR less than 75%, so that would be a large change towards a much more conservative(!) rule. > So yes, you???re right that we could split the question in two: > 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? > 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? > > My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you???re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. The "confusion" about /48 and /56 has been brought up a few times, and the NCC has made it clear that they consider "a single assigned /48" to be the equivalent of "256 /56s" for the purpose of evaluating HD ratio. Nothing really "complex" or "confusing" here - you count your /56s, you look up the HD value that applies to your network size, and then you have a clear "ratio reached / not reached" answer. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161220/9a1f6cba/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]