Eric, > EricLKlein wrote: > This was a comment strictly based on what I understood from > the thread in this conversation, the /48 was based on the > IANA implementation.
Not at all. This is a matter of semantics. First, the use of the word "implementation" in this context (associated to IANA) is terrible. Second, the /48 is not directly based on IANA anything. The /48 currently is RIR recommended assignment policy, and RIR policies WRT this have been greatly inspired by RFC3177 (an IAB/IESG, not IANA, document). > Pekka Savola wrote: > My perception is that the /48 "border" is inside the > IANA delegation. I'm afraid this is not the clearest sentence that the talented Pekka has written. Although it might be technically correct, it takes many shortcuts. The /48 is assigned to a site by a LIR. The LIR gets its space for a NIR or a RIR, and the RIRs are delegated space by IANA. What Pekka meant by "inside the IANA delegation" was "not part of the architecture", I believe. The topic here is the removal of the SLA boundary from the architecture, while the IID boundary remains part of it. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
