Colleagues, Ooops,
HD is calculated for prefixes, but on the basis of /56 (since November 2007) Please see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html#utilisation Best, Geza On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nit on the nit... > > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of *being* > based on endpoint addresses as IPv4 is. > > (the second part needed a verb) > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > >> Wording nit in 2.4.2 >> Current: >> HD is calculated for sites (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of based >> on addresses like with IPv4 >> should read: >> HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of based >> on endpoint addresses like with IPv4 >> >> >> It is not clear that the 6bone space discussion is appropriate for this >> document, and restating what is effectively a policy will cause a problem >> in >> the future. Removing the last sentence of 2. and all of 2.3 will not >> impact >> the intent of this document. Given that the stated target audience is >> network managers that have not figured out an IPv6 addressing plan, >> confusing them with a discussion about ancient history is not helpful. >> >> Tony >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>> Jari Arkko >>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM >>> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List >>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen; >>> Ron Bonica >>> Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of >>> discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the draft >>> had >>> about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been >>> revised >>> to what we believe is reasonably consistent with reality and existing >>> IPv6 address architecture RFCs. However, it would be good to give the >>> 6MAN WG a chance to review the text. >>> >>> Please take a look at the document and the given two sections in >>> particular: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#section-3.1 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#appendix-B >>> >>> If there is no objection the draft will be approved. Please comment by >>> September 30th. >>> >>> Jari >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
