IP renumbering timeframe

Sat Jun 1 03:16:16 UTC 2002


	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 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
> >
>