[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt



--On mandag, juni 09, 2003 09:56:40 -0400 Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com> wrote:


Hi All,

I'm just trying to figure out the state of this document (yet
again)...

At this point, there is only one DISCUSS listed against the
document (Randy's, below), but there are three IESG members
(Harald, Bill and Allison) who don't have any positions listed.
What does that mean?
Most likely it means that they weren't on the call that discussed it, and have raised no objections. I know that's what mine means....

Also, what are we supposed to do about Randy's discuss?
Will the ops-dir person who sent the e-mail (and/or Randy) be
sending this issue to the IPv6 WG?  Or, are we (the WG chairs
and/or document editor) supposed to send it?

The AD (Thomas) is supposed to discuss this with you. Thomas?


The whole point of this document is to move the current TLA/NLA
assignment rules to historic, removing the fixed internal
hierarchy from IPv6 addresses...  It is no longer reasonable
for implementations to assume that there is any hierarchy to
these addresses, other than the bitwise hierarchy inherent in
CIDR-based/longest-match forwarding algorithms.  So, I think it
would be misleading and potentially confusing to add hierarchy
fields to the address diagrams.

Of course, in reality, registries and enterprises can and often
do allocate addresses hierarchically.  But, that doesn't affect
the structure of IPv6 addresses.
My reading of the comment is that the reviewer wants the same thing - to say that the one who gets the allocation to play with can put in hierarchy at any bit boundary he/she/it wants, and that CIDR-based longest-match will make the Right Thing happen. Randy - is that what you wanted?


Margaret




---
Randy:
From: ops-dir
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,ops directorate <ops-dir@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:58:52 -0400

At 09:23 PM 4/11/2003 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
 >***** o IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format (Informational)
 > <draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt>
 > Token: Narten, Thomas
 > Note: An IETF LC call is needed, as this reclassifies RFC 2374
 > historic.; last call expires 2003-04-08.

my concern with this note is that at the top of page 3
the diagram implies that there is a single global
routing prefix, followed by a subnet id.
the text says that the global-routing-prefix is
typically hierarchically structured, which implies
that it is not a single global routing prefix but
has some internal structure, with higher and lower
levels of prefix and so on and so forth. it _might_
be nice if the authors were to do a bit of text editing
and try and get the diagram to say the same thing (eliminating
the implication in the diagram that there is exactly 1 prefix).

also, the text and diagram sort of imply that there is one level
of 'subnet id' that would be available to a 'site'. this is
not completely true. my isp may allocate me a /32, leaving
me 32 bits to play with which i may in turn make hierarchical
allocations out of. again, some text twiddling might be nice
here.