proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure
Petri Helenius pete at sms.fi
Fri Nov 22 17:16:15 CET 1996
Daniel Karrenberg writes: > > > Petri Helenius <pete at sms.fi> 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
[ lir-wg Archives ]