> -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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
I second this. Actually, I don't see the IPv6 model being so different from the IPv4 model of subnets, as much as it is a generalization of the IPv4 model. The term "subnet" even in IPv4 is somewhat misleading, ever since CIDR was introduced, and yet it stuck. And everyone seems to understand it pretty well. To me, IPv6 assumes many possible IP addresses for any given interface. Then again, IPv4 allows this too. And IPv6 allows link-local addresses, which IPv4 also allows now (RFC 3927). And IPv6 gives an explicit lifetime to each of the address prefixes, which IPv4 does not do explicitly. But that doesn't mean that IPv4 subnets are immutable in time, either. It helps understanding IPv6 if we keep a common vocabulary, IMO. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
