Within some constraints, the Cisco PD link numbering mechanism actually
allows flexibility in the length of the delgated prefix. The CLI allows for
concatenation of the delegated prefix with additional bits to form a /64,
independent of the length of the delegated prefix. The end result is to
log
Hi Thomas,
Below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:30:19 -0400
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: ,
> Asunto: Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
>
> Hi Jordi.
>
>> Hi all,
>
>> I've rev
On 12-jul-2006, at 9:30, Thomas Narten wrote:
draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
I have several problems with this document.
It's vague. RFC 3177 is very clear and provides easily identifiable
recommendations supported by arguments. The new draft doesn't provide
any recommendatio
Hi,
On Jul 13, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Whether "excessive" is an appropriate word to use is a judgement
call. YMMV. But, the word "excessive" is literally the word I hear
many people (especially in the RIR and operational community) use when
talking about this issue.
Actually, I
Ralph,
> Thomas - is there any way in which you can quantify "excessive"?
Whether "excessive" is an appropriate word to use is a judgement
call. YMMV. But, the word "excessive" is literally the word I hear
many people (especially in the RIR and operational community) use when
talking about this i
>> But then I have a related question: why is this document supposed to
>> be an Experimental RFC, rather than a Proposed Standard? I originally
>> thought it was because the spec is going to be standardized against
>> the 'design principle' as a special exception.
>
> At this point, I don't reme
Thomas - is there any way in which you can quantify "excessive"?
E.g., make some suppositions for an ISP:
* number of subscribers
* subscribers per aggregation point (CMTS for cable)
* length of prefix required for each aggregation point
* length of prefix to be assigned to an ISP based on the ab
Hi Jordi.
> Hi all,
> I've reviewed this document and my comments are as follows.
> 1. Introduction
> "giving out an excessive". I think we need to define excessive
> and/or say if this is an objective or subjective perception.
I have two repsonses to this.
First. giving out a /48 to every hom
> On 12 Jul 2006 09:10:26 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> In some sense, your point is true. However, in order to provide the DNS
> resolution service for the globally roaming hosts which is away from its
> home network, I believe that the TSIG-based approach is a good candidate.
>
