Eliot Lear wrote: > Joe, >> It doesn't seem appropriate to recommend behavior other than the current >> until these addresses are actually allocated. They remain "reserved for >> future use" until actually used, not before. >> >> This draft is odd in that it is recommending an action (treat as >> unicast) without actually defining the behavior of that space. "Partly" >> defining that behavior isn't, IMO, a useful step forward. >> > > We claim that the space can and should be used as normal unicast space, > just as old Class A, B, or C space. What we don't know is whether it > should be public or private, and we claim that there is no need to > decide that question today because the coding for either is exactly the > same. Is there wording that you think would make this more clear? > > Eliot
Public and private space are coded differently in some cases - e.g., in
firewalls and other configuration software (not at the net layer, though).
Section 4 would need not to say "please allocate this space", not "leave
it reserved" (to paraphrase).
Other observations
- whether IPv4 is the 'future' or not, it doesn't seem appropriate to
consume the entirety of the remainder of the space for an existing use.
Perhaps not all /4 should be reserved, but some - a /6 or /7 - should be
left reserved.
- I'll leave to IANA whether the argument therein is sufficient to
allocate a /4 (minus a /6 or so); I don't think the case is made very
well, FWIW.
Joe
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
Postel Center Director & Research Assoc. Prof., USC/ISI
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
