Re: draft-baker-v6ops-13-multihoming-analysis-00

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

>  so... are we bringing back RFC 1897?

Would it work to apply RFC 1897 as:
- ASN has 16 bits and there is a room for a larger ASN if needed
- EU would still get 128-bit IPv6 address with the leading 32 bits set to zero (to
be replaced with ASN at the network connection point)
- IPv4 is built in meaning that EU can keep their current IPv4 and put them right
into IPv6 easing the transition
- /32 provides big enough space to any EU



--- bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:

> 
>  so... are we bringing back RFC 1897?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:33:37AM -0500, Fred Baker wrote:
> > concatenating the ASN into the IP address would certainly be one way  
> > of providing a scalable routing locator. Check the archives, and you  
> > will find that at one time (perhaps a decade back) I suggested that  
> > as a quick method for the initial assignment of addresses - simply  
> > give every current AS a prefix numerically related to its AS number.  
> > I don't believe that to be required for scalability, however, which  
> > is why I don't bring it up in the document. What I do see as required  
> > is the ability to limit the number of prefixes advertised to a number  
> > comparable to the number of assigned AS numbers, and constrain those  
> > to people who actually need an AS number from a BGP perspective.
> > 
> > We have been asked to move this conversation to ram@iab.org aka  
> > ram@ietf.org.
> > 
> > On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote:
> > 
> > >Fred,
> > >
> > >More comments
> > >p.3 says "Fortune 500" while p. 20 has "Fortune 1000".
> > >p.18 above the diagram "the links from B<->A and B<->A were  
> > >shorter", why two B<->A?
> > >p.19 near the top "issues... relate to human stupidity". How about  
> > >"human error"?
> > >p.27 section 5. "From the author's perspective" when the draft has  
> > >two authors.
> > >
> > >This is a good summary of what is going on plus projections. But  
> > >overall it feels
> > >that the current architecture constrains the market and it does not  
> > >scale. The draft
> > >illustrates the need for flexible PI addressing with the model such  
> > >as "a service
> > >domain. That domain could as easily be the customers of a  
> > >cooperative as the
> > >citizens of a government". Any given tax authority is a good proxy  
> > >for such
> > >cooperative and it could assume a mechanical function of the  
> > >distribution and
> > >management of PI.
> > >
> > >Providers would get through RIR an independent set of  
> > >geographically rigid
> > >aggregation points, eg. ASN. A new protocol could be needed to  
> > >combine PI+ASN for
> > >scalable routing(?)
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >______________________________________________________________________ 
> > >______________
> > >Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> > >Access over 1 million songs.
> > >http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com