Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:38:46 -0800

I hear the fedex truck already.

> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group
> Working Group of the IETF.
> Title: IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:03:41 -0800

Eric,

> EricLKlein wrote:
> This was a comment strictly based on what I understood from
> the thread in this conversation, the /48 was based on the
> IANA implementation.

Not at all. This is a matter of semantics. First, the use of the word
"implementation" in this context (associated to IANA) is terrible.

Second, the /48 is not directly based on IANA anything. The /48
currently is RIR recommended assignment policy, and RIR policies WRT
this have been greatly inspired by RFC3177 (an IAB/IESG, not IANA,
document).

> Pekka Savola wrote:
> My perception is that the /48 "border" is inside the
> IANA delegation.

I'm afraid this is not the clearest sentence that the talented Pekka has
written. Although it might be technically correct, it takes many
shortcuts. The /48 is assigned to a site by a LIR. The LIR gets its
space for a NIR or a RIR, and the RIRs are delegated space by IANA.

What Pekka meant by "inside the IANA delegation" was "not part of the
architecture", I believe. The topic here is the removal of the SLA
boundary from the architecture, while the IID boundary remains part of
it.
 
Michel.