It is not a recommendation, as long as the "e.g." part is in the text.
And it already is, so no problem. (But Tony's and Fred's suggested edits
certainly deserve to be taken into account.)
Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Marla,
In what sense is "(e.g. on a basis of /48)" a recommendation?
Brian
On 2008-10-01 04:09, Azinger, Marla wrote:
My point with all of this is that I don't see it proper for IETF documents to reflect or
suggest anything other than a technical boundary. Neither /48 or /56 are technical
boundaries and they shouldn't be put in an IETF document as a recommendation just because
its the "flavor" of an RIR for the current year or because it just sounds good.
I am asking all of you to stick to factual technical aspects. The minute a subnet is written into an IETF
document as a "recommendation" it limits RIR policy in the future due to ignorance. RIR
communities historically have taken the word "recommendation" as a warning sign that if you go more
or less specific with a subnet you would venture into a technical issue. And then it turns into a painful
game of trying to change RIR policy or IETF documentation once reality hits that the "recommended"
subnet had no technical significance, or more experience was gained and what was thought to be technically
true turns out not to be.
What the world needs are documents that point out factual boundaries. And if there
aren't any then point that out as well. But the last thing we need is another IETF
document that inserted selected subnet sizes without technical significance. This very
reason is why the ARIN RIR is messed up and has /32 as the Allocation size due to an IETF
document that "recommended" /32 without any technical basis.
I caution any use of a specific subnet size unless its pointing out a known
technical barrier.
Thank you
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
ARIN AC
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:02 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica; Pasi Eronen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs
Subject: Re: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
If the registries are using /56, why recommend what they have tried and found
wanting?
On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
/56 is a choice currently used by the registries. That doesn't
invalidate using /48, if you consider that to be a more interesting
allocation unit to consider. So I don't see a problem with "(e.g. on a
basis of /48)".
Brian
On 2008-09-29 09:55, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
