Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make a significant difference?
I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006.
my analysis only looked at the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006.
Ooops, wrong number slipped in. It's not 5,121 but 2,939 allocations done by the NCC between 1/1/2003 and 1/1/2006. -- Rene
Rene Wilhelm wrote:
Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make a significant difference?
I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004).
With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006.
Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation rates? As I recall the .96 value was a rough fit from some simple calculations, so there is nothing that ties us to that. I realize it is probably a trial and error effort, but now that the models are built it should just be processing time to run through some numbers until the rate aligns. Tony
Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation rates?
to make a log fit a linear? is that a bit like squaring a circle? i think we're down to the question of who gets screwed. and it's pretty clear that it's the small folk. since the hd ratio stuff came from the telco world, i guess i am not surprised. randy
participants (3)
-
Randy Bush -
Rene Wilhelm -
Tony Hain