About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure

  • To: Petri Helenius < >
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:25:25 +0100
  • Cc: JOIN Project Team < >
    Frank Hoffmeister < >
    Juergen Rauschenbach < >

  > Petri Helenius pete@localhost writes:
  > Using only 56 bits for the IR would effectively defeat the possiblity
  > of using MAC / ESI addresses as the low 48 bits of an IP address.

Sorry I don't get you. The subscriber has 64 bits to play with. 
That gives 16 bits to select the physical subnet if you choose to 
use 48 bits for MAC. Do we have a misunderstanding?

Here is the lenghts from msb in my proposal:

  3 - Provider-Based Unicast Address prefix (010)
  5 - regional IR ID (32 is plenty)
  r - local IR ID (r=56-s)
  s - subscriber ID (s=56-r)
 64 - subscriber local addressing (maybe 16+48 for Petri)
---
128
===

The values for r would be determined similarly as with current policies:

1) new local IRs get a fixed size allocation
2) furhter allocations will be determined according to usage rate.

Detailed policies such as ranges for r subject to further discussion.

Daniel




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community