Re: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes

[Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>]

If the registries are using /56, why recommend what they have tried  
and found wanting?

On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> /56 is a choice currently used by the registries. That doesn't
> invalidate using /48, if you consider that to be a more interesting
> allocation unit to consider. So I don't see a problem with
> "(e.g. on a basis of /48)".
>
>    Brian
>
> On 2008-09-29 09:55, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > Ooops,
> >
> > HD is calculated for prefixes, but on the basis of /56
> >
> > (since November 2007)
> >
> > Please see
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html#utilisation
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Geza
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> > > nit on the nit...
> > >
> > > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of  
> > > *being*
> > > based on endpoint addresses as IPv4 is.
> > >
> > > (the second part needed a verb)
> > >
> > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wording nit in 2.4.2
> > > > Current:
> > > > HD is calculated for sites (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of  
> > > > based
> > > > on addresses like with IPv4
> > > > should read:
> > > > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead  
> > > > of based
> > > > on endpoint addresses like with IPv4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is not clear that the 6bone space discussion is appropriate  
> > > > for this
> > > > document, and restating what is effectively a policy will cause a  
> > > > problem
> > > > in
> > > > the future. Removing the last sentence of 2. and all of 2.3 will  
> > > > not
> > > > impact
> > > > the intent of this document. Given that the stated target  
> > > > audience is
> > > > network managers that have not figured out an IPv6 addressing plan,
> > > > confusing them with a discussion about ancient history is not  
> > > > helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On  
> > > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > Jari Arkko
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
> > > > > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon at tools.ietf.org; V6ops Chairs; Pasi  
> > > > > Eronen;
> > > > > Ron Bonica
> > > > > Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
> > > > > discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the  
> > > > > draft
> > > > > had
> > > > > about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been
> > > > > revised
> > > > > to what we believe is reasonably consistent with reality and  
> > > > > existing
> > > > > IPv6 address architecture RFCs. However, it would be good to  
> > > > > give the
> > > > > 6MAN WG a chance to review the text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look at the document and the given two sections in
> > > > > particular:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#section-3.1
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#appendix-B
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is no objection the draft will be approved. Please  
> > > > > comment by
> > > > > September 30th.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jari
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> > > > > ipv6
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6 at ietf.rg/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org

If the registries are using /56, why recommend what they have tried  
and found wanting?

On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> /56 is a choice currently used by the registries. That doesn't
> invalidate using /48, if you consider that to be a more interesting
> allocation unit to consider. So I don't see a problem with
> "(e.g. on a basis of /48)".
>
>    Brian
>
> On 2008-09-29 09:55, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > Ooops,
> >
> > HD is calculated for prefixes, but on the basis of /56
> >
> > (since November 2007)
> >
> > Please see
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html#utilisation
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Geza
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> > > nit on the nit...
> > >
> > > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of  
> > > *being*
> > > based on endpoint addresses as IPv4 is.
> > >
> > > (the second part needed a verb)
> > >
> > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wording nit in 2.4.2
> > > > Current:
> > > > HD is calculated for sites (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of  
> > > > based
> > > > on addresses like with IPv4
> > > > should read:
> > > > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead  
> > > > of based
> > > > on endpoint addresses like with IPv4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is not clear that the 6bone space discussion is appropriate  
> > > > for this
> > > > document, and restating what is effectively a policy will cause a  
> > > > problem
> > > > in
> > > > the future. Removing the last sentence of 2. and all of 2.3 will  
> > > > not
> > > > impact
> > > > the intent of this document. Given that the stated target  
> > > > audience is
> > > > network managers that have not figured out an IPv6 addressing plan,
> > > > confusing them with a discussion about ancient history is not  
> > > > helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On  
> > > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > Jari Arkko
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
> > > > > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon at tools.ietf.org; V6ops Chairs; Pasi  
> > > > > Eronen;
> > > > > Ron Bonica
> > > > > Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
> > > > > discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the  
> > > > > draft
> > > > > had
> > > > > about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been
> > > > > revised
> > > > > to what we believe is reasonably consistent with reality and  
> > > > > existing
> > > > > IPv6 address architecture RFCs. However, it would be good to  
> > > > > give the
> > > > > 6MAN WG a chance to review the text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look at the document and the given two sections in
> > > > > particular:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#section-3.1
> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#appendix-B
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is no objection the draft will be approved. Please  
> > > > > comment by
> > > > > September 30th.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jari
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> > > > > ipv6
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > > org
> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6 at ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------