Hi John, On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:55:27 -0700 "John Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If my organization is large, and I will petition my ISP for a > /44, or even a /40, I'd like to be able to use the mechanism > outlined above to randomly generate myself a Unique Local /40 > prefix so I can map my routable and site-restricted space as I > desire. > Out of interest sake, if you are able to tell me, I'm curious how large ? I'd have thought a /46 or 256K subnets would have been large enough for the largest organisations in the world, even allowing for unused subnets due to aggregation to allow for multiple instances of IGPs separated by BGP internally, as IGPs may be limited in how many subnets they can carry. At least to me, a /40 (or just a /40 size address space of different /48s) for a single organisations' subnet requirements is pretty much inconceivable. > I did not see a provision in the draft that would allow me to do > that. Is that correct - there is no provision for generating a > shorter prefix? > I agree with Pekka, you're probably going to have to divide up your routing protocols into IGP instances / private ASes just to cope with that many subnets anyway, I'd think inside your organisation different ULA /48s corresponding to these IGP instances / private ASes would be resonable. I'd also think having a separate public Internet connection for each of those /48s or 65 K subnets is at least likely (for no other reason that having your phone ring when more than that many users lose their Internet access would cause it to melt!), and therefore using global /48s along those same boundaries would also make sense, and allow you to use the same subnet numbers for the ULA and global /48 within each IGP instance / private AS division. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
