> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:40 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Paul Vixie; [email protected] > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > I would support Paul proposal, but with one small change. > Paul proposes > a delegation hierarchy in the ULA-C space: > > > > should be replaced with this one: > > > > > > | 7 bits |1| 8 bits | 16 bits | 16 bits | 80 bits | > > > +--------+-+----------+---------+---------+----------+ > > > | Prefix |L| Reserved | RIR Num | LIR Num | User Num | > > > +--------+-+----------+---------+---------+----------+ > > That is fine, but I would rather call the delegation field by a > different name than "RIR Num". Call in it RIR assumes that the numbers > can only be allocated by the current set of regional > registries. I don't > see any technical reason to carve this policy in a standard. I would > much prefer a neutral designation, e.g. "Registry Number".
I agree. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
