> -----Original Message----- > From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:57 AM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > On Jun 28, 2007, at 09:39, Christian Huitema wrote: > > > 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". > > Actually, I think for DNS operation purposes, it makes more sense to > reserve the RIR Num field for the existing regional registries. > Registries that aren't RIRs can be assigned by IANA directly > from the > RIR=0 space.
I still agree with Christian that there is no technical reason to build policy into the standard. Also, IMHO, this is discussion is coming close to diverging from the technical realm and entering into "Big Business". Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
