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

[Petri Helenius <]

Daniel Karrenberg writes:
 > 
 >   > 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?
 >
OK, I understood you would hand out 56 bits to the IR (having 72 bit
prefix for an IR). Which would practically lead for an IR delegating
48 bits or less at a time. If 56 is the prefix length, we're in
agreement.(as you below describe)

Sorry for the confusion. I hope you make quick progress since we
really need to get this allocation stuff up and running.

Pete

 > 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