Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 08:07:02 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Host address availability recommendations
        Authors         : Lorenzo Colitti
                          Vint Cerf
                          Stuart Cheshire
                          David Schinazi
	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2015-11-01

Abstract:
   This document recommends that networks provide general-purpose end
   hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and
   describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:16:56 +0100 (CET)

I see there have been changes to replace "smaller" prefix size. Personally 
I don't like "shorter" and "longer", it's not intuitive which is which 
(compare using -gt and -le in prefix filter lists).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:31:53 +1300

On 02/11/2015 13:16, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 
> I see there have been changes to replace "smaller" prefix size. Personally I don't like "shorter" and "longer", it's not
> intuitive which is which (compare using -gt and -le in prefix filter lists).
> 

"Smaller" is completely ambiguous - does it means smaller prefix or smaller address block?

   Brian

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:03:22 +0900

> "Smaller" is completely ambiguous - does it means smaller prefix or smaller address block?

At the time of the WGLC I proposed the following text:

   Assigning prefixes with the length larger than 64 will limit...

(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22862.html)

This may sound too verbose but shouldn't have any ambiguity.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:08:21 +1100

longer/shorter is unambigious as it describes the length.

larger/smaller can be a length or volume (a address count).

Mark

In message <[email-masked]>
, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
>  I don't like "shorter" and "longer", it's not
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:11:34 +1100

> "Smaller" is completely ambiguous - does it means smaller prefix or smaller address block?

So (as an English first language speaker), I interpret "smaller" and
"larger" to be describing an unordered quantity in most cases, where
as I interpret "shorter" and "longer" to be describing a measure in
most cases. The exceptions are when there is other context that
indicates alternative use.

Therefore my expectation is that "smaller" and "larger" would be used
to describe the number of addresses in a prefix, where as "shorter" or
"longer" would be describing the length or measure of the prefix.

I agree with making sure to avoiding ambiguity, I know on occasion it
hasn't been clear to me whether somebody is describing a prefix with a
smaller number of addresses, or a shorter prefix length, which
obviously mean the complete opposites in terms of number of addresses
within the prefix, when they use "smaller prefix".

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 02:57:26 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, Mark Smith wrote:

> smaller number of addresses, or a shorter prefix length, which obviously 
> mean the complete opposites in terms of number of addresses within the 
> prefix, when they use "smaller prefix".

What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 02:03:46 +0000

> What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?

I am a bit puzzled about this controversy.   The term of art, as I have understood it in the past, is "shorter prefix" and "longer prefix."   I don't know why you'd want to use smaller/larger.   But the authors should just pick something and explain what they mean.   If they want to use "smaller/larger," they should say "a smaller prefix is a prefix with fewer significant bits of prefix."

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:27:19 +1100

> What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?

That would be clearer.

I think the fundamental things to get right are to make clear when a
number of addressing related objects (e.g., numbers of addresses for
link attached hosts, or numbers of /64s in the case of prefixes being
assigned to links) is being described, and when a prefix length that
will contain that number of addressing related objects is being
described.

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: Havard Eidnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:52:28 +0100 (CET)

>> What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?

To me that's still borderline ambigious, and I don't understand
why anyone would want to use borderline ambigious wording when
writing RFCs or discussing them.

It's not clear whether it's the prefix-length which is "smaller"
or "larger" or the address space covered which is "smaller" or
"larger", and they each point in the direction of different
interpretations.  In other words, you don't "size" a prefix, but
you "size" the address space covered.  A prefix, on the other
hand, has length, so to my eyes the above looks ... awkward.

Therefore I'm suggesting the more unambigious "shorter/longer
prefix" as preferable.

Regards,

- Håvard

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:02:39 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, Havard Eidnes wrote:

> Therefore I'm suggesting the more unambigious "shorter/longer prefix" as 
> preferable.

I did some research, so perhaps we can take inspiration from:

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt

"One of the problems encountered when assigning a longer prefix (less
    address space) is that"

... and then use shorter/longer throughout the document? Just to give an 
introduction to the reader who might not be 100% sure what "longer prefix" 
means?

... and I guess I just need to figure out some rule of thumb for myself to 
remember what shorter/longer means.

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:15:00 -0600

On 11/2/15 18:02 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> Therefore I'm suggesting the more unambigious "shorter/longer prefix"
>> as preferable.
>
> introduction to the reader who might not be 100% sure what "longer
> prefix" means?
>
> ... and I guess I just need to figure out some rule of thumb for myself
> to remember what shorter/longer means.

I've thought all along longer/shorter is the right way to go.  But 
adding a parenthetical on the first use of longer and shorter, doesn't 
seem to be asking too much and would seem to add some clarity. So +1.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================

---

From: "Howard, Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:08:16 +0000

</hat>
I find prefix length to be a clear descriptor. However, apparently not
everyone does, so the term should be defined before using it throughout
the document.
Prefixes have length (longer/shorter), blocks have volume
(larger/smaller). IMHO.

Lee

<hat>

On 11/2/15, 6:52 PM, "v6ops on behalf of Havard Eidnes"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>>>>obviously

________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.