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 ipv6@ietf.org >>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ >>>>>> ipv6 >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative >>>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative >>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
