|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IP renumbering timeframe
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Since I run a small AS : > > I like this idea. > > Since I believe in living dangerously : > > I also think that a /64 should be reserved in the IPv6 address space, A /64 would have no use in the proposed scheme since it identifies a single subnet. I suspect you really want a /32 set aside since that would provide routable space to allocate /48's to each 16 bit AS. > and (32 bit) ASN's should be given their own /32 in a GLOP > like fashion > for IPv6. I don't think the concept scales to 32 bit AS. Tony > > Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > In a message written on Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:27:49AM > -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > >>I'd be mildly concerned that people would see "free IP > blocks" and start > >>using them even when not necessary. I think allocating them > a /24 from > >>this block only when they have demonstrated need, and don't > have any other > >>ARIN assigned blocks, would be far more efficient. > >> > > > > Since the goal is to reduce paperwork, I'm not sure about > 'demonstrated > > need', but I could definately endorse "you get a /24 with > your ASN if > > and only if you have no other registry assigned space > assigned to you". > > I specifically exclude provider allocated space, as I'm > assuming the ASN > > goal is to multihome. > > > > > > > -- > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > > > T.M. Eubanks > Multicast Technologies, Inc > 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 > Fairfax, Virginia 22030 > Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 > e-mail : [email protected] > http://www.multicasttech.com > > Test your network for multicast : > http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ > Status of Multicast on the Web : > http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html >
|