[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt
- To: Tim Chown <email@example.com>, Geoff Huston <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Narten <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt
- From: Fred Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:21:05 -0700
- Authentication-results: imail.cisco.com; header.Fromemail@example.com; dkim=pass ( message from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1815; t=1125598603; x=1126030803; c=nowsp; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; d=cisco.com; email@example.com; z=Subject:Re=3A=20I-D=20ACTION=3Adraft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt| From:Fred=20Baker=20<firstname.lastname@example.org>| Date:Thu,=201=20Sep=202005=2011=3A21=3A05=20-0700| Content-Type:text/plain=3B=20charset=3DUS-ASCII=3B=20delsp=3Dyes=3B=20format=3Dflowed| Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit; b=RggSk4T3eNrGQYBaOWgh+QrxkQKpqdEitRSEpAZD1aCrgGvrzz6P8ZCEdhn+PSEbPn3kQwCC xDCvrXtff4hPIL9GAW07QftkirZcofrB5yYSiam+VUsDaCeL0brlhdVqkVbX4/F4df5VS+21Bh+ XM8G1aAtI1xFt2BPvfTr+Qt8=
- In-reply-to: <20050901153944.GB2098@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- References: <E1EAYav-0004Vw-I4@newodin.ietf.org> <20050901153944.GB2098@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Are you of the opinion that we should take this, and perhaps Thomas'
draft, up as a v6ops draft?
(I would question whether free advice on address allocation policy is
actually an IPv6 WG topic as much as an operational topic anyway, and
certainly comments on the HD ratio is an operational topic)
On Sep 1, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:50:01PM -0400, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
Title : Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric
Author(s) : G. Huston
Filename : draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt
Pages : 18
Date : 2005-8-31
This memo provides an analysis of the Host Density metric as
currently used to guide registry allocations of IPv6 unicast
blocks. This document contrasts the address efficiency as
adopted in the allocation of IPv4 network addresses and that
the IPv6 protocol. It is noted that for large allocations
very significant variations in the target efficiency metric
the two approaches.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
A couple of observations.
I note from RFC3194 that it says "The examples suggest an HD-ratio
on the order of 85% and above correspond to a high pain level, at
operators are ready to make drastic decisions" and that "...this
that values of 80% or less corresponds to comfortable trade-offs
pain and efficiency."
So the argument here is that very large networks don't share the same
HD ratio property? I think it would be nice to state the crux of
of this draft in the intro section.
I guess the references for 3513 and 3177 should point to the -bis
currently in draft?
This draft states assumptions about /48's, so should probably
impact of /56's being the default? Or do you think Thomas' draft
discuss this? The two seem quite linked :)