I am now very confused! The IANA IPv4 address registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml) contains only 256 entries, where each entry describes an entire /8. There are a number of /8s that have a single routing policy, (0/8, 127/8), but there are a much larger number of cases where there is no single routing policy that is applicable to all addresses in the /8 (e.g. 192/8).
I note that this draft does NOT propose to change the format of the ipv4 address registry, so I assume that the /8s in the IPv4 address registry will remain. Given that the IANA IPv4 Special purpose address registry already contains a routing scope, and the IANA IPv4 address registry only operates at the level of a /8 then for Ipv4 I'm left wondering exactly what is the purpose of this draft with respect to IPv4 and the IANA IPv4 address registries. How would it be applied to the IANA IPv4 address registry? (the example in the draft is entirely unhelpful in so far as the address blocks in the draft's example do not correspond to entires in any IANA IPv4 address registry. So if it does not readily apply to the IANA IPv4 address registry, does it apply to the IANA IPv6 registries? The IPv6 address space registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xml) also appears to be inapplicable (side note - conventionally March is spelled with a capital "M"). The unicast registry appears to contain a list of unicast address allocations to the RIRs, and the Special Purpose Address registry for Ipv6 (http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xml) already contains a routing scope field. So I'm left with the distinct impression that for whatever value a "routing intent" may have in the IANA IPv4 and IPv6 registries, I simply cannot see its applicability to the existing IPv4 and IPv6 IANA registries. i.e. I cannot see any practical application of this instruction to the IANA as it relates to the IANA-maintained IPv4 and IPv6 address registries and the granularity of the registry entries maintained by the IANA. regards, Geoff On 17/08/2011, at 12:02 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > I have made those changes. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manderson-routing-intent-02.txt > > Cheers > Terry > > > On 15/08/11 4:44 PM, "Terry Manderson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So I saw no comments on this. >> >> What I propose is that I add words to routing-intent-00 with the effect of >> adding an extra column to the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry >> listing the binary option for Public Routing Intent (PRI) to be consistent >> to the other IP address registries that acquire this column. The routing >> scope as defined by RFC5736 for the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address >> Registry can remain as it is and can provide the (human) reader with more >> information for those entries in the special address registry.. because.. >> well.. they are "special" ;) >> >> If I see no objections to this I will make the change in the next day or so >> and publish a revision. Otherwise, please put forward a suggestion. >> >> Cheers >> Terry >> >> >> On 15/07/11 11:32 AM, "Terry Manderson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> RFC5736 deals with only the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry, a >>> registry that at present contains one entry for DS-lite. >>> >>> There are two ways that the instruction for IANA contained in >>> draft-manderson-routing-intent-01 can be taken with respect to the IANA IPv4 >>> Special Purpose Address Registry. Either add and additional column for >>> Public Routing Intent (PRI) or replace the existing routing scope column >>> with PRI. So a clarification is worthwhile. >>> >>> There are arguments for both in uniformity versus simplicity and utility. >>> The latter option leaves the reader to investigate routing particulars (if >>> not intended to be globally routable) in the RFC which made the address >>> assignment. >>> >>> Additionally it's also possible to add words to >>> draft-manderson-routing-intent to exclude the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose >>> Address Registry from acquiring change, as it already has a routing >>> designator. >>> >>> What say you WG? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Terry >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15/07/11 10:36 AM, "Geoff Huston" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> I seek your feedback on the I-D below. >>>> >>>> To what extent does this draft further alaborate on part 7 of the list in >>>> the >>>> IANA Considerations of RFC5736? >>>> >>>> To remind the WG, that document states that the registry includes: >>>> >>>> >>>> 7. The registry will also note, for each designation, the intended >>>> routing scope of the address, indicating whether the address is >>>> intended to be routable only in scoped, local, or private >>>> contexts, or whether the address prefix is intended to be routed >>>> globally. >>>> >>>> So I'm left wondering what this I-D is trying to achieve over and above >>>> what >>>> is already >>>> in RFC5736? >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> Geoff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22/06/2011, at 10:39 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Chairs and WG, >>>>> >>>>> I seek your feedback on the I-D below. >>>>> >>>>> I'd also like to present this to the WG in Quebec. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Terry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ Forwarded Message >>>>>> From: <[email protected]> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:31:50 -0700 >>>>>> To: Terry Manderson <[email protected]> >>>>>> Cc: Terry Manderson <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>>>>> draft-manderson-routing-intent-00.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-manderson-routing-intent-00.txt has been >>>>>> successfully submitted by Terry Manderson and posted to the IETF >>>>>> repository. >>>>>> >>>>>> Filename: draft-manderson-routing-intent >>>>>> Revision: 00 >>>>>> Title: Signalling Public Routing Intent (PRI) for Internet >>>>>> Protocol >>>>>> Addresses in IANA Registries >>>>>> Creation date: 2011-06-22 >>>>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>>>> Number of pages: 12 >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>> This document provides direction to IANA to mark existing and future >>>>>> IANA IPv4 and IPv6 allocations with generic terms pertaining to the >>>>>> Public (global) Routing Intent (PRI). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>>> >>>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> GROW mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Geoff Huston >>>> Chief Scientist, APNIC >>>> >>>> +61 7 3858 3100 >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GROW mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow -- Geoff Huston Chief Scientist, APNIC +61 7 3858 3100 [email protected] _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
