IP renumbering timeframe

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Sat Jun 1 00:38:11 UTC 2002


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 at 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?
> >>
> >>
> >>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 : tme at 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
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list