to recall: - this draft is used by many organisations (both providers/R&E networks/enterprises) for address plans. - it is a way to manage efficiently the address space you get. - this draft was first presented 3 years ago and just need to be published, in order for organisations that want to use it to refer to a RFC instead of a draft that might disappear anytime.
Marc. -- vendredi, février 21, 2003 10:43:12 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/a écrit: > > Hi All, > > During the last call period for "A Flexible Method for > Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address > Block", there was only one comment (attached). The > comment did not raise any specific technical issues with > the document, but it did question its usefulness. > > As I am sure many of you know, documents should only be > forwarded to the IESG for approval when there is a consensus > of the WG that the document is both technically sound and > useful. One ambivalent comment is not sufficient input to > demonstrate WG consensus for publishing this document. > > So, if there are people in the WG who do believe that this > document is both technically sound and useful and should be > sent to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC, > could you please speak up? > > You can find the latest version of the document at: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt > > Thanks, > Margaret > > > >> To: Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the >> Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" >> >> >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the >> > following document as an Informational RFC: >> > >> > Title : A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment >> > of Bits of an IPv6 Address Block >> > Author(s) : M. Blanchet >> > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt >> > Pages : 8 >> > Date : 2003-1-6 >> >> >> I don't have problems with this, though I'm not sure how useful this is >> for most (but for some, certainly). >> >> >> A point I've raised in the past is, most operators are not really >> interested in optimizing the address assignments on a bit level (provided >> that the number of customers is not so high it would be required). >> Rather, here we do so with nibbles. Those are easier to calculate in the >> head and work better with reverse DNS delegations too. >> >> >> But I'm not sure whether this kind of "coarser approach for flexible >> assignment" calls for some text or not. A mention at most, I think. >> What do others feel? >> >> >> -- >> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the >> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." >> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
