On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:59:11 -0700 Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:11:19PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:35:36 -0700 > > Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think a better way of describing it is "administrative domain". A > > > > home and the devices in it are an administrative domain - the person who > > > > bought or looks after the devices has to administer, or at least take > > > > ownership of the administration of those devices. That ownership could > > > > be as simple as ringing up an external contractor to get problems > > > > sorted out - this is the same sense that I "administer" the pumbing or > > > > electrical system in my home. > > > > > > > > An "administrative domain" could correspond to a site (a home), or it > > > > might not at all (a personal area network). > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > within the routing world, "administrative domain" has avery > > > clear meaning - an ASN boundary. > > > > > > > I think it is the other way around. The way to describe > > where an ASN boundary can fall is a network's administrative domain, > > but not all network administrative domains have ASNs - > > self-administered corporate networks that are behind an > > ISPs ASN being a common example. > > > > Regards, > > Mark. > > thats not what the RFCs or current practice dictate. > Can you then give me a different term to describe my service provider employer's corporate customers networks and residential networks I don't have any administrative role or control over, yet are part of my service provider employer's ASN ? If your context is the global Internet, then yes, I can see that it could be said that these downstream customers fall within our adminisrative domain, from the perspective of other ASN members of the Internet. However, when the context isn't the global Internet, and ULAs are not global addresses, then I don't think you can accurately say administrative domain = ASN. Obviously context is everything. In this case, I think ULAs are a more general context than the specific Internet. A user of a ULA/ULA-C might never have an Internet connection, so will never need global prefixes or a global ASN. They'd still have an administrative domain, encompassing all the devices they administer, to apply that ULA/ULA-C prefixes to. Regards, Mark. > --bill > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
