|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IP renumbering timeframe
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2002 17:52:55 -0700 > "Tony Hain" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > OK > > > > 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. > > Why not ? /32 with 32 bit ASN still leaves a /64 for each ASN. See above... What is the point of an ASN if all you are multi-homing is a single subnet? Also, since mechanisms like rfc3041 somewhat rely on a sparse utilization to quickly converge on a usable address, you would never be able to demonstrate the efficiency you need to justify a larger block. > > Marshall > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
|