Ralph Droms wrote:
> I think the term "subnet" should not be used in this document, and
> should be replaced with "prefix" or "link" throughout, as appropriate.
>
> "subnet" is not defined in any of the base IPv6 RFCs, as far as I
> know. The term doesn't appear at all in RFC 2460. Two instances
> seem to have crept into RFC 4861, and four in RFC 4862.
> Interestingly, some of those instances of "subnet" should, in my
> opinion, be replaced with "prefix" and some with "link"...
>
> ...which gets to my point that "subnet" is an imprecise term and can
> have different meanings in different contexts.
I agree that "subnet" by itself is underspecified; in some cases it
should just be a prefix. I don't think this document uses subnet" to
mean "link".
However, I do think we should refer to "subnet prefix" in some places.
If nothing else to make it easier for folks with an IPv4 background to
understand what we are talking about. The "subnet prefix" term is
specified in RFC 4291 (the addressing architecture) thus I don't think
need to completely purge it.
In this vein I think it might make sense to expand the title of the
draft to:
IPv6 subnet model: the relationship between links and subnet prefixes
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
