Subject: RE: IPv6 WG Last Call on "Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation"

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:50:15 -0800

Margaret / Shin / Ralph,
	
> Margaret Wasserman
> This is an IPv6 working group last call for comments on
> submitting the following document for consideration as an
> Informational RFC:
> Title: Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation

> 4.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixed
> The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for delegation
> of prefixes of length /48, /64 and other lengths, and SHOULD
> allow for delegation of more than one prefix to the customer.

This is too vague IMHO; either:
a) s\and other lengths\and other lengths shorter than /64
or
b) s\and other lengths\and other lengths between /48 and /64
b) is more restrictive, although it could be argued that the very few
organizations that will be assigned a prefix shorter than /48 will
likely not use prefix delegation and break it up in multiple /48s
anyway.

- IMHO, there should be a non-normative reference to RFC3177 in
1.Introduction, as it would clarify the expectation that customers will
be assigned a /48 IPv6 address prefix.

- If convenient, a normative reference to the
soon-to-be-published-any-day-now addr-arch-3.11 would be useful to
complete the paper trail.

- 4.7 Layer 2 Considerations. "Layer 2" could be confusing as there is
no reference to the model. The model I guess you have in mind is fine by
me as I have long lobbied for using a well-defined de-jure model instead
of a blurry de-facto model for documentation purposes, but I hear that
it is a capital sin to use this model within the IETF.

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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------