RE: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

There is no discussion about negating the overly conservative mindset of the RIR membership, and that the reason they didn't take this up until 2005 was that they were not really serious about IPv6 before that. That overly conservative mindset still exists, with no consideration about the long term impact of their oppressive behavior. 

There is no discussion of the point raised in the intro about the scaling impact on the public routing system. I would suggest after the last paragraph of section 2:
Being overly conservative on end site assignment size also has a direct impact on the potential size of the global routing system. When longer prefixes are assigned to end sites, the public routing table has the potential to grow 2^n times larger than with shorter prefixes. Many of the same people that complain about assigning the same size prefix to large enterprises and home users also complain about the scale of the public routing system, without acknowledging that the longer prefixes make that problem worse.

The summary comment about bridging not being desirable appears to assume that it is even technically possible because all the subnets will use Ethernet framing. There should be some discussion about the potential for new framing formats to be developed that will not be technically compatible with existing link technologies. When that happens the braindead single-subnet model will result in another nat fiasco.


The summary comment about 'generally unacceptable' is probably the wrong language. Maybe reword the comment something like:
- assigning a longer prefix to an end site, compared with the existing prefixes the end site already has assigned to it, is likely to increase operational costs and complexity for the end site, with no discernable cost savings to anyone. 


Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt
> 
> 
> > The document is short enough that I think the best think for people
> to
> > do is just read it and then comment here on the list.
> 
> I think it's significantly improved from the -02 version
> and should be published. It's important to get this analsysis
> out into the wider community.
> 
>      Brian