[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    (IPng 2640) Re: larger AS/RD space for v6?
From:       Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 ! hpcl ! titech ! ac ! jp>
Date:       1996-12-21 17:29:03
[Download RAW message or body]

> I will note that some people are concernedrelative to the 8+8 proposal
> that either 14 bits may not be enough space for the top, or that 45 bits
> may not be enough for the full provider heirarchy.  While the presence of
> heirarchy will allow some reuse of policy identification (AS) space, I
> would hate to be too heavily dependent on that.  If we need thousands
> of top level entities, and absurd numbers of "ISP"s with policy, it would
> seem likely to me that at some point we will need more than 16 bits worth
> of policy space identifier.
> When will we need that is definitely an open question.

???

I'm totally confused.

With provider based hierarchical addressing, RFC 1887 or 8+8,
the address itself identifies a group of routes.

So, why do we need things like ASes?

							Masataka Ohta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Mailing List		      FTP archive: ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ipng
IPng Home Page:          	      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]