Hi, thanks for changing the Subject: accordingly. On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 11:34:53AM +0000, Remco Van Mook wrote:
On 05-11-11 12:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
I think I mentioned this a few times before: if you think the HD ratio is using the wrong number, or if you think the HD formula is completely wrong to start with, please submit a policy proposal to change this to whatever you think would work better.
But this is somewhat out of scope for the discussion of 2011-04 and should not be discussed in *this* thread.
+1 from my side as well. In addition, I consider it rather a feature of the current HD-ratio that using transition technologies such as 6RD can get you in trouble for subsequent allocations if you don't clean up at some point.
Indeed, but we shouldn't mix 6rd (which is a huge waster of "assignment densitiy" if used with full 32 bits) and large-scale access networks with multiple levels of aggregation - and for these, there is some meat to Daniel's argument about "the current HD ratio is too strict". So I'll welcome a discussion on HD ratio in general or different a HD ratio value, backed with numbers to make the problem clear to the AP community (without numbers that explain the problem without people having to wrap their heads on logarithms, it will be hard to convince the community). 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279