Erik - thanks; I was not aware that "subnet prefix" is defined in RFC 4291. I'll read draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination with that definition in mind.
- Ralph On Mar 11, 2008, at Mar 11, 2008,10:36 AM, Erik Nordmark wrote: > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
