Re: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:50:01PM -0400, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 	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 address
>    blocks.  This document contrasts the address efficiency as currently
>    adopted in the allocation of IPv4 network addresses and that used by
>    the IPv6 protocol.  It is noted that for large allocations there are
>    very significant variations in the target efficiency metric between
>    the two approaches.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-hd-metric-01.txt

A couple of observations.

I note from RFC3194 that it says "The examples suggest an HD-ratio value
on the order of 85% and above correspond to a high pain level, at which
operators are ready to make drastic decisions" and that "...this suggests
that values of 80% or less corresponds to comfortable trade-offs between
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 the 'case'
of this draft in the intro section.

I guess the references for 3513 and 3177 should point to the -bis versions
currently in draft?
        draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-04
        draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00

This draft states assumptions about /48's, so should probably discuss the
impact of /56's being the default?   Or do you think Thomas' draft should
discuss this?   The two seem quite linked :)

-- 
Tim/::1