Re: Wasting address space (was: Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric))

2006-06-06 Thread Tim Chown
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having > to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the "will > I ever need a second subnet" consideration, the average allocation > size g

Re: Wasting address space (was: Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric))

2006-06-05 Thread bmanning
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 3-jun-2006, at 5:33, Steven Blake wrote: > > >I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD > >ratios > 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making > >address > >allocations to larger p

Wasting address space (was: Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric))

2006-06-05 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 3-jun-2006, at 5:33, Steven Blake wrote: I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD ratios > 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making address allocations to larger providers). I believe that: (1) this would not solve a real problem, A little

Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric)

2006-06-05 Thread Steven Blake
I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD ratios > 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making address allocations to larger providers). I believe that: (1) this would not solve a real problem, (2) it is risky to infer too much from existing network design

Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric)

2006-06-05 Thread Steven Blake
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 10:39 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > At 01:33 PM 3/06/2006, Steven Blake wrote: > >I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD > >ratios > 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making address > >allocations to larger providers). > > > This

Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric)

2006-06-03 Thread Geoff Huston
At 02:52 PM 4/06/2006, Steven Blake wrote: > Your representation as to the document's conclusions is simply not > supported by the document itself. Geoff, I don't understand why you think my paraphrase of your document's conclusions (including the quoted text above) is unfair or inaccurate. I

Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric)

2006-06-03 Thread Geoff Huston
At 01:33 PM 3/06/2006, Steven Blake wrote: I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD ratios > 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making address allocations to larger providers). This is a topic of interest both to the IETF and to regional addressing p