nanog mailing list archives
RE: IP renumbering timeframe
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:35:18 -0700
Andy Walden wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Tony Hain wrote:What is the point of an ASN if all you are multi-homing is a single subnet?Tony, I'm missing the correlation between the amount of address space announced and multihoming. (Beyond the prefix being too long and potentially filtered). Care to elaborate? andy
The only reason for an ASN is the need to globally announce routing policy due to multihoming. Unless policy changes, this community tends to insist that the prefix length announced via that ASN corresponds to a site, not a single subnet. For IPv6 that means a /48 makes sense as an initial allocation with a new ASN, and a /64 does not. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe, (continued)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Hank Nussbacher (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Leo Bicknell (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Richard A Steenbergen (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Vadim Antonov (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Valdis . Kletnieks (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Andy Walden (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe bmanning (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 06)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Eliot Lear (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Daniel Golding (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Scott Granados (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)