Hi,

Brian Haberman wrote:

[...]

> >          +----------------------+-------------------------------+
> >          | Attribute            | Value                         |
> >          +----------------------+-------------------------------+
> >          | Address Block        | 192.88.99.0/24                |
> >          | Name                 | Deprecated 6to4 Relay Anycast |
> >          | RFC                  | [RFC7526]                     |
> >          | Allocation Date      | June 2001                     |
> >          | Termination Date     | March 2015                    |
> >          | Source               | N/A                           |
> >          | Destination          | N/A                           |
> >          | Forwardable          | N/A                           |
> >          | Globally Reachable   | N/A                           |
> >          | Reserved-by-Protocol | N/A                           |
> >          +----------------------+-------------------------------+
> >
> >                        Table 10: 6to4 Relay Anycast
> >
> >
> > MGLT: Maybe some text should be added to specify that a block even
> > expired remains registered. I assume that some information are set to
> > N/A as the block has expired. If that is correct, I believe we need a
> > note in section
> > 2.2.1 that explains the rule in as well as its the motivations.
>
> I think that relates to how IANA manages the block.
>
> Michelle or Leo?

This registry is already quite wide and detailed. Adding additional text 
within the registry entry might make it difficult for readers to get a 
complete view of the registry without a particularly wide screen. Instead, 
perhaps we could add a footnote that paraphrases the last sentence of the IC 
section from RFC 7526:

7.  IANA Considerations

   The document creating the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address
   Registry" [RFC6890] included the 6to4 Relay Anycast prefix
   (192.88.99.0/24) as Table 10.  Per this document, IANA has marked the
   192.88.99.0/24 prefix (originally defined by [RFC3068]) as
   "Deprecated (6to4 Relay Anycast)" and added a reference to this RFC.
   The Boolean values for the address block 192.88.99.0/24 have been
   removed.  Redelegation of this prefix for any use requires
   justification via an IETF Standards Action [RFC5226].

Does that approach work for people? Does this need to be specified in the 
document updating this registry?

Kind regards,

Leo

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to