Re: IPv6 WG Consensus call: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 WG Consensus call: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt
- To: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
- Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Consensus call: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt
- From: Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:42 +0100
- Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>, IPv6 WG <ipv6 at ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian at innovationslab.net>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at nokia.com>
- In-reply-to: <425E5C19.1050001@zurich.ibm.com>
- List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Mail-followup-to: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>, Brian Haberman <brian at innovationslab.net>, Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at nokia.com>, IPv6 WG <ipv6 at ietf.org>
- References: <200504121420.j3CEKY1p017039@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <853acce3627cabf053004a5206ffd526@innovationslab.net> <425E5C19.1050001@zurich.ibm.com>
- Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
For info, the copy of the ARIN proposal I have seen says:
" 6.11 Assignments to End-sites with Autonomous System Numbers
Any end-site which meets the current criteria for assignment of an
autonomous system number (ASN) shall also qualify for one IPv6
prefix assignment of the minimum size justified under the ARIN
guidelines for assignment by an LIR. If the organization grows to
require more space, it will not be entitled to an additional block,
but rather may obtain a new, replacement block of sufficient size
to meet its needs in exchange for making the commitment to return
its existing block within 24 months, so that it may be reassigned."
Presumably if the end-site wishes to route the /32(?) globally as PI then
it is probably likely to need an ASN anyway?
But it could be a /48, as per the IX allocations, presumably?
Tim
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:03:37PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I agree that this is the best approach right now.
>
> Brian C
>
> Brian Haberman wrote:
> >IPv6 WG,
> > This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
> >draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
> >is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assigned
> >ULA specification (which is currently in the RFC Editor's Queue)
> >before continuing work on the centrally-allocated mechanism.
> >
> > The chairs would like to solicit input from WG members on this
> >approach. Please state your support or disagreement with this
> >approach. Those who disagree, please state rationale for wanting
> >to continue this work at this time.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Brian & Bob
> >IPv6 WG co-chairs
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Tim/::1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.