On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Per Heldal wrote:
...
> ... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to,
> or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case
> overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and
> firewalls as there
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to,
or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case
overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and
firewalls as there is no connection (direct or indirect)
> ... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to,
> or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case
> overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and
> firewalls as there is no connection (direct or indirect) between the
> networks.
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:48 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > With no shortage of resources (in this case AS-numbers and IP-addresses)
> > we wouldn't have this discussion. Then nobody would care how an
> > organisation is using the resources that are allocated to them.
>
> Thankfully there is
> With no shortage of resources (in this case AS-numbers and IP-addresses)
> we wouldn't have this discussion. Then nobody would care how an
> organisation is using the resources that are allocated to them.
Thankfully there is no shortage of IP addresses and there
will be no shortage of AS numbe
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 10:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
> > >want to send traffic to any other AS. They only want
> > >to send traffic to customers, vendors or business
> > >partners of some sort.
>
> > The point I was trying to make is: A
> >This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
> >want to send traffic to any other AS. They only want
> >to send traffic to customers, vendors or business
> >partners of some sort.
> The point I was trying to make is: A site is assigned an AS if it has a
> network that is connected to the gl
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:33:30PM +0100, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> At 11:57 07/11/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> What about those that are assigned and used but not [currently] visible
> >> on the public Internet [i.e., are on other internets]?
> >
> >Indeed!
> >
> >On Henk's slide number 5 h
At 11:57 07/11/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What about those that are assigned and used but not [currently] visible
> on the public Internet [i.e., are on other internets]?
Indeed!
On Henk's slide number 5 he states:
"Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS"
This is NOT
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One way to visualize this is to imagine the Internet
as a cloud. At the core of the cloud are the core
providers and at the edge of the cloud are the end
user organizations, many of which appear to be
singly homed. However, hidden behind this edge is
a thin layer w
On 7-Nov-2005, at 05:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Henk's slide number 5 he states:
"Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS"
This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
want to send traffic to any other AS.
Wanting to do something and wanting to be able to do someth
> What about those that are assigned and used but not [currently] visible
> on the public Internet [i.e., are on other internets]?
Indeed!
On Henk's slide number 5 he states:
"Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS"
This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
want to send
Hello;
On Nov 5, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
At 03:09 AM 5/11/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Russ White wrote:
>
> - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers.
That's odd,
> if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it
At 03:09 AM 5/11/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Russ White wrote:
>
> - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd,
> if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
> grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS nu
Also, some of the original motivations behind CIDR starts to go out the
window when you have enough IP space that you can hand out huge chunks
ahead of immediate need. Who cares about efficient utilization or "but I
only need a /35 and you gave me a whole /32, I'm wasting so much space"
when th
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:14:31PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> > While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths
> > for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early
> > fossilization when it doesn't ne
At 11:10 AM 5/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>> no waffling. you said october 14th, and we're holding you to it!
>> we would like to know about what time of day, so we can schedule
>> lunch and coffee.
> well, the figures indicate that RIPE will receive 10 requests on that day,
> and will start the
>> no waffling. you said october 14th, and we're holding you to it!
>> we would like to know about what time of day, so we can schedule
>> lunch and coffee.
> well, the figures indicate that RIPE will receive 10 requests on that day,
> and will start the day with 5 left in their pool. So the fir
At 07:27 AM 5/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> RIRs, and if we assume no change in AS number policies, and no
> change in the trend of ageing out 'old' AS numbers at a rate of
> some 5% per year into the unadvertised pool, then the 2byte field
> will exhaust sometime in October 2010.
no waffling.
>>> Is AS reclaimation an option? We don't know how many 'dark'
>>> (unadvertised) AS numbers are used as VPN IDs in 2547 contexts.
>> do we care? i.e. does it affect the real public internet. are
>> these not like 1918?
> nope, they need to be unique... or they SHOULD BE unique (globally
> uniq
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Is AS reclaimation an option? We don't know how many 'dark'
> > (unadvertised) AS numbers are used as VPN IDs in 2547 contexts.
>
> do we care? i.e. does it affect the real public internet. are
> these not like 1918?
nope, they need to be unique... or
> RIRs, and if we assume no change in AS number policies, and no
> change in the trend of ageing out 'old' AS numbers at a rate of
> some 5% per year into the unadvertised pool, then the 2byte field
> will exhaust sometime in October 2010.
no waffling. you said october 14th, and we're holding yo
From [bgp.potaroo.net], the number of all ASs seen in all theroute-views routing tables is around 21,000.
Plenty of space to recover, even though some of those might be inprivate use (and might or might not be able to use private ASNs).There just doesn't seem to be the political will to do so (e.g.
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:41:48 +0200, Pekka Savola said:
> Seems a bit irresponsible to me. Personally I'd rather focus on
> cleaning up the AS number mess a bit rather than throwing more
> technology at the problem.
All the same, we need to start the technology throw now, because it's well
know
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Russ White wrote:
- -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd,
if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 09:57:14AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 4-Nov-2005, at 09:07, Russ White wrote:
>
> >- -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's
> >odd,
> >if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
> >grow to much more--how'd we lose
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Russ White wrote:
>
> - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd,
> if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
> grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that we now
> need more than 64,000?
I think so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 4-Nov-2005, at 09:07, Russ White wrote:
>
>> - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd,
>> if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
>> grow to much more--how'd we l
On 4-Nov-2005, at 09:07, Russ White wrote:
- -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's
odd,
if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that we now
need more than 64,000?
http://www
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>>>A routing table capable of handling a flat 2^128 addressing space goes
>>>beyond the realm of known physics -- and flat 2^64 comes close, at least for
>>>a while (consider semiconductor atomic weights, and the fact that 1 mole is
>>>approximately
> > actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
>
> ...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting
> double-plus-As, or what?
no, super *duper* A's.
--
Paul Vixie
On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal,
but dumping the excess into the edges, "just cause its easy" strikes
me as lame. a routing table slot is a slot is a slot. It holds
a /96 as we
>
> whilst i'm at the mic here, ditch the idea of microassignments, just give out
> a
> standard /32 block ... lets not start out with ge 33 prefixes in the table
> when
> theres no need
>
> Steve
there is this wonderful, apparently US phenomeon, called the
"warehouse" store
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
> >
> > Well, they are somewhat special. All o
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
>
> Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries.
> The importance of this come
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries.
The importance of this comes in when deciding how to lay out a routing table
in a gate array or memory
Please pardon the crossposting between ppml and nanog...
Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why /48 rather than /47 or /49? - alignment to nibble boundaries to
> make DNS delegation easier.
It has recently come to my attention that we are in error when we
expect "n[iy]bble" to have the
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
er.. would this be a poor characterization of the IPv6 addressing
architecture which is encouraged by the IETF and the various RIR
members?
class A == /32
class B == /48
class C == /56
hostroute == /64
It's qu
At 01:16 PM 3/11/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
>
(someone might already have asked this, but...) why /48?
Because the thinking at the time appears to be that to "ease' renumbering
reduce the c
> >>> class C == /56
> >>> hostroute == /64
>
> and i:
> as, in the truely classful days, a lan was a C == /24, i'll
> stick to my guns for the moment that a new C is a /64 and so
> forth.
and this from the man who actually received a /33 delegation
in v4 space! :)
> as th
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy
> > had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)
>
> actually, bill and i disagreed. this is not unusual :-)
>
oh silly me, I skipped over 'hostroute' and read 'class c' doh :( anyway,
t
> I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy
> had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)
actually, bill and i disagreed. this is not unusual :-)
>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> class A == /32
>>> class B == /48
>>> class C ==
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > hostroute == /64
> > > >
> > > > (and just think of all that spam than can originate from all those
> > > > "loose" IP addresses in that /64 for your local SMTP server!!! Yummy)
> > > >
> > > > -- Oat Willie
>
> ok... so is it -ju
> > > hostroute == /64
> > >
> > > (and just think of all that spam than can originate from all those
> > > "loose" IP addresses in that /64 for your local SMTP server!!! Yummy)
> > >
> > > -- Oat Willie
ok... so is it -just- me that gets the willies thinking of the
2x64-1 avai
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
>
(someone might already have asked this, but...) why /48? Perhaps it's the
convenience of it all, but I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the
listing as bill/randy had laid it out (accept the wording
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths
> for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early
> fossilization when it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Yeah, that's what seems imp
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subnets. If you start
> from the premise that all subnets are 8 bits (dubious, but I have
> heard it asserted) in IPv4,
not according to my view of the internet..
/8: 18 /9: 5 /10: 8 /11: 17 /12: 79 /1
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred Baker) [Thu 03 Nov 2005, 01:17 CET]:
A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subnets. If you start
You've been reading too much Cisco Press material.
All a "Class A" gives you today is filthy looks, and people who know
better shake their heads, feeling sorry
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths
> for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early
> fossilization when it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Yeah, that's what seems important to me here... I
On Nov 2, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting
double-plus-As, or what?
A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subn
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting
double-plus-As, or what?
-Bill
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
er.. would this be a poor characterization of the IPv6 addressing
architecture which is encouraged by the IETF and the various RIR
members?
class A == /32
class B == /48
52 matches
Mail list logo
