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