nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
From: bmanning () karoshi com
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 03:16:16 +0000 (UCT)
Being picky... IDs are possible RFCs RIR documents don't even get that far... :)
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:tme () multicasttech com] 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? andyThe only reason for an ASN is the need to globally announce routing policy due to multihoming. Unless policy changes, thiscommunity tendsto insist that the prefix length announced via that ASNcorresponds to asite, not a single subnet. For IPv6 that means a /48 makessense as aninitial 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 : tme () multicasttech com 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
Current thread:
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe, (continued)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Vadim Antonov (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Valdis . Kletnieks (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Andy Walden (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe bmanning (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 06)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Eliot Lear (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Daniel Golding (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Scott Granados (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David Schwartz (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David Schwartz (May 09)