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

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:39:44 +0100

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:50:01PM -0400, [email-masked] 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

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:21:05 -0700

Are you of the opinion that we should take this, and perhaps Thomas'  
draft, up as a v6ops draft?

(I would question whether free advice on address allocation policy is  
actually an IPv6 WG topic as much as an operational topic anyway, and  
certainly comments on the HD ratio is an operational topic)

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:08:48 +0100

Hi Fred,

These sem to be very operational issues to me.  I think both are views
of the same overall issue, i.e. evolving the 'big picture' for BCP in
IPv6 address allocation and management.   Thomas cites the HD ratio
in his draft, for example, but not Geoff's draft (I think!).

I think an interesting bit of RFC3177 is the reasoning for a fixed /48
boundary in section 3.  Issues like multihoming and site-locals that
are discussed, but I don't think Thomas picks those up.  3177 talks of 
leaving the option to retrofit an 8+8 multihoming model, but I think 
we're now heading a different way with shim6.  3177 also talks about 
site locals, which would lead to the implication that we'll need to
modify ULAs to be /56 friendly if Thomas' suggestions are adopted.

Tim

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:32:33 -0400

> draft, up as a v6ops draft?

FWIW, I think the 3177bis document is more appropriate as an IPv6 WG
document than a v6ops one. In particular, a major goal of the document
is to document what _technical_ and _architectural_ relate to a
boundary of /56 vs. /48. (And it is my expectation that the answer is
that there are none).

That doesn't mean that v6ops shouldn't review and provide input; I
encourage them to do so.

If there are _operational_ issues of having end sites obtain a /56
rather than a /48, that would be good to hear about. I suppose there
could be some, but again I can't think right off of any major ones.

> certainly comments on the HD ratio is an operational topic)

Right. Comments on HD ratio might well be more appropriate for v6ops
than IPv6. But I'm not sure right off that Geoff's document should be
a v6ops WG document. It clearly needs review from multiple parties,
including v6ops & (say) the IAB. But ultimately its likely target is
informational, rather than BCP. Also,  its _real_ target/consituancy
is the RIR community. And operational issues about address policy are
expected to be discussed there already. 

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 10:44:43 -0500

From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>
To: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>

> document than a v6ops one.

From the Paris meeting minutes at 
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/minutes/ipv6.txt

10. Next Steps for IPv6 w.g.     (Hinden)
    Advancing core specification to Standard
    Goal: Discussion

    Since 1994 we have published 61 RFCs!  Core protocols went to
    Draft Standard in 1998.  Working group scheduled to close end of
    this year.

Is IPv6 still taking on new work? (Not saying it shouldn't - actually, I 
have another draft that is also targeting IPv6 - but I thought I should 
ask).

Thanks,

Spencer