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: > > >>> | 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.
where in my diffs do i restrict RIRs to the current set of RIRs? it's expected that there may be more RIRs in the future. it's also very likely that /32's will be handed out in blocks of five or ten to RIRs who request this kind of space from IANA, similar to the way AS numbers are done. > > 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 deliberately did not use the word "ID" since i expect each RIR to request more than one of these /32's. i'd avoid "Registry Number" for similar reasons. james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. the text i submitted, which more than one person here has now demonstrated that they did not read, explicitly reserves RIR Num 0 for direct IANA allocations. (not that there's any IANA policy allowing such allocations, but if there ever is one, this is the bit pattern that would represent it.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
