proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure
JOIN Project Team join at uni-muenster.de
Fri Nov 22 14:50:28 CET 1996
Hi Daniel, > > Hi, > > some quick comments: > > > |FP+RegID| Provider ID | Subscriber ID | Intra-Sub | > > | | PRID | RPID | | | > > +--------+-------+------+---------------+-----------+ > > | 8 bit | 7 bit | n bit| (49 - n) | 64 bit | > > +--------+-------+------+---------------+-----------+ > > > > with n = 17 ! > > > > > > PRID (Provider Region ID) > > 7 bit corresponds to 128 IDs. These are mainly reserved for the > > countries of the 'natural', ie. European, RIPE-Region (A5). > > Can you provide a rationale for grouping providers by country. > It strikes me as contrary to both aggregation and conservation goals. We assume that ISPs will mainly offer their service within one country. > > > Non-European domains supported by RIPE get their own prefix > > (FP+RegID) in order to support a dedicated authority for > > these regions in the future. > > This is very difficult to do since it is by no means clear where regional > boundaries will be. Is it much more difficult to draw a border between the African RIPE region and the European RIPE region than between the RIPE region and the INTERNIC region? > > > If this turns out not to be enough to satisfy the needs of > > a very LARGE provider then, there should be the option to > > double the assigned address space by adjoining the neighboring > > address block. In order to do so RPIDs should be assigned in > > multiples of 16 initially, leaving the option to half the > > 'reserved' address space but still keeping the option to > > double. > > For this to work, the additional space needed must be exactly > the reserved size. Usually it is either less or more. > Strategies like that have been shown to be less than optimal for > conservation while the additional aggregation effect is not very > big. Do you prefer a scheme in which the address space of a provider is more precisely adapted for its needs? More conservation, less aggregation? > > How about just using the 56 bits for local-IR+subscriber? > The boundary does not need to be fixed at all. > Then use a similar scheme than the present IPv4 one to determine the > size of allocations to local IRs (provider): > Fixed size for new local IRs and further allocations based on > established usage rate. I think this scheme could result in a too conservative allocation policy with regard to the large address space we have at our disposal. It might be negative for aggregation and/or IPSs. > > > We hope that this proposal will serve at least as input for > > discussion. > > Certainly. > > Daniel >
[ lir-wg Archives ]