18 Dec
2015
18 Dec
'15
5 a.m.
Hi
As there was no more traffic in this thread the last days I think we can
live with this.
But wait - it still comes much better than the E.212 MCC proposal!
The E.212 MCC proposal is a subset of the "List of data Country or
geographical area codes in the X.121 recommendation of ITU-T. They are
listed in "Annex J" pages 25-32. It can be downloaded for free here:
https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-X.121-200010-I!…
Starting page for further information is here:
https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.121/en
What does this meen for our private ASN solution?
- Everything can still remain as we have discussed it here!
- The numeric MCCs are still the same as the Country or geographical
area codes in X.121.
- There are a lot of countries with high densitiy of telco-networks
that have even more "MCCs" as listed in the E.212 document.
- This may correspond with density of radio amateurs in that countries.
Example:
In E.212 the netherlands are listed with MCC204. That would result in
private ASN-range of 42204xxxxx for our solution/proposal.
Next country listed in E.212 is Belgium with MCC206. What is with
"MCC205"? This additionaly is listed in the X.121 document and there it
is assigned to Netherlands.
That means that in our proposal the netherlands could have two ranges:
42204xxxxx and 42205xxxxx
France has 208-211, Spain has 214-215, Poland 260-261, Germany 262-265
and so on.
In document X.121 most of the "gaps" between the MCCs from document
E.212 are filled and assigned to certain countries.
Many (bigger) countries can have just much more ASN-range when we base
our proposal on the "data country or geographical area codes" in ITU-T
X.121 recommendation.
Very nice ;-)
On 11.12.2015 at 22:39 CET Heikki Hannikainen wrote:
Hi,
The E.212 MCC proposal seems good to me, the arguments are good. A few
further (less significant) arguments:
* There is a precedent: MCC is used in amateur radio DMR (MotoTRBO &
friends) ID allocations in the DMR-MARC network as the country prefix
for station IDs (in a DMR network, each user needs an unique 24-bit
"phone number").
* I would guess the E.212 MCC numbering is pretty well carved in stone
(for currently existing countries, anyway), and outlive the DXCC country
code numbering.
I think you are right - especially taking ITU-T X.121 taking into account.
...
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Egbert - DD9QP wrote:
>> I will stick to that E.212 thing as it uses only 3 digits and because
>> others are already doing this.
>
> Sounds good. So let's see what we have up to now:
>
> 1.) private 32bit-ASN for 44/8 depending on E.212 country codes.
>
> unique prefix for every country yes 42<mcc>xxxxx
> ASN space dependend on size of
> country on the go yes multi mccs for "big" ones
> already used by some countries yes YO PA LU* (* only proposal)
> mapable on internet-ASNs at edge yes --> see HamWan Group
> compatible to existing 16bit-ASNs yes --> European HAMNET
> compatible to existing hard-/software yes mikrotik, quagga, bird(?)
> total unique management in own ASNs yes within own 42<mcc>-Range
> allows different policies/registries yes every country decides
> allows automatic IP-dependend ASNs yes every country decides (PA)
> allows other methods for "generating" yes e.g. "klick a free
ASN"
> allows integration of "old" 16bit yes --> European HAMNET
> allows integration of other 16bit yes no doubles --> mcc prefix
> Transfer 32bit through 16bit possible yet not verified for HAMNET
> Transfer 16bit through 32bit possible yet not verified for HAMNET
Transfer 32bit through 16bit possible verified for EU-HAMNET
Transfer 16bit through 32bit possible verified for EU-HAMNET
I think there is nothing that should prevent us to change our proposal
based on X.121 than on E.212.
73s de Egbert DD9QP