North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IP renumbering timeframe
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.tx t is the replacement for 2373 http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/global-ipv6-assign-2002-04-25.html is the replacement for 2374 Yes a /16 would allow for 32 bit ASNs. The prior note was looking for a /32. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:09 PM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: Andy Walden; nanog > Subject: Re: IP renumbering timeframe > > > This is described in rfc2373 and rfc2374. The 128 bit address space > is separated into a /64 for each "site" and the remaining 64 bits for > the MAC address, etc, for interfaces on the site. The > "public" topology > is 48 bits, and this is what is supposed to be routable. > > This would work with a 32 bit ASN based automatic assignment > - one /16 > could be allocated to this, with 32 bits for the ASN, 16 bits > for "site" > assignments and 64 bits for interface assignments. > > This is _not_ the service model of RFC2374, which envisions 8192 top > level routing aggregators (TLA's), with other entities getting their > address blocks from one of the TLA blocks. > > Regards > Marshall > > Tony Hain wrote: > > > Andy Walden wrote: > > > >>On Fri, 31 May 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > >> > >> > >>>What is the point of an ASN if all you are multi-homing is a single > >>>subnet? > >>> > >>Tony, > >> > >>I'm missing the correlation between the amount of address > >>space announced > >>and multihoming. (Beyond the prefix being too long and potentially > >>filtered). Care to elaborate? > >> > >> > >>andy > >> > > > > The only reason for an ASN is the need to globally announce routing > > policy due to multihoming. Unless policy changes, this > community tends > > to insist that the prefix length announced via that ASN > corresponds to a > > site, not a single subnet. For IPv6 that means a /48 makes > sense as an > > initial allocation with a new ASN, and a /64 does not. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of > Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements > > > 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 >
|