Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage-00.txt

[Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 11:09:22AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:38:25AM -0400, Michael H Lambert wrote:
> > ----------
> > 2.5  IPv6 Addressing
> > 
> >   One site using this VLAN technique has chosen to number its IPv6
> >   links with the format [Site IPv6 prefix]:[VLAN ID]::/64.  This is not
> >   a recommended addressing plan, but some sites may wish to consider
> >   its usage.
> > ----------
> > 
> > I see two ways of reading this text.  The first is that there is some 
> > fundamental flaw with this addressing format and other options should be 
> > considered.  The second is that this format is just being used as an 
> > example, but the document takes no stand on any particular scheme.
> 
> I'assume the second one is what is intended ("this is just an example,
> and you can do it this way, but you don't have to"), but indeed the wording
> could also be read as "this is NOT RECOMMENDED!  don't do this!".

I also think the second is the intention. However, I think it might be a
bad idea, so I would perhaps prefer to read it as "don't do this". When
picking IPv6 prefixes for links people use all kinds of creative tricks
where the prefixes have some meaning. This is one example. I understand
it can make it easier for some administrator initially. Problem is that
you may later be forced to renumber just to preserve your naming, or
you don't and then you have exceptions to the rule that was initially
created.

Stig

> gert
> -- 
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)
> 
> SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
> D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234
>