Obviously, there was, and is confusion:
a.
My wording "allocated" refers to the specifications'
allocation/partioning, as opposed to registries' allocation. Sorry.
b.
Comparing section 2.4 of RFC 2373 (page 6), and the draft (page 7),
there is difference, since a table was removed/moved. Based on page 7 of
the draft, the table in section
2.4 seem to suggest that the "global unicast" is "(everything else)",
besides,
unspecified, loopback, multicast, link-local, and site-local addresses.
These were both
a source of confusion.
c.
Why is the IANA Section in the Appendix C, following two informational
appendices? It is not "normative"? Given the place and the order, one
can simply miss it, as I did, sorry, which can be an obvious source of
confusion.
I think the specifications being more clear, would help lower the
probability of confusion, in particular, information relative to the
partitioning of the address space.
Also the partitioning must be normative, or I am missing something
Alex
Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > I am quite concerned about the fact that at this moment the entire
> > IPv6 space is allocated, with no experimental, or reserved space for
> > future development.
>
> i don't perceive that this is at all the case.
>
> almost no space has been allocated, O(100) /35s.
>
> the current drafts have iana considerations asking that they only
> allocate from 001/3.
>
> what am i missing here
>
> randy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
