Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
2003-12-16 04:06:55
At 23:42 08/12/03, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not sure if it needs to be a /32 or if it needs to be just a single
one, but I fully agree this should be documented very well and in a
central place. Buried somewhere on a RIR website isn't good enough. (Try
finding the the micro allocation list on the ARIN site without help from
Google.)
I think this means it must be an RFC. RIR documents just don't have the
same standing in the community, and, apparently, quality control.
I suggest ISO should define an international trans network numbering scheme
that could be adopted as the IPv6.010 numbering plan, the same way as the
ccTLD list is the ISO 3166 2 letters list, and IDNA uses unicodes etc.
This would relieve IETF from these user, political, etc. oriented
inapropriate controversies. IPv6 is supposed to support 6 plans. Whatever
relates to a specific plan kills that possibilty. The "IPv6 inside" label
should only be granted when everything is transparent to the current
IPv6.001 and may function the same with IPv6.010, whatever IPv6.010 may be.
As an IPv6 user this is my legitimate expectation to show me that IPv6.111
will most probably work if 001 and 010 are orthogonal.
My suggestion for 010 is orthogonal to 001 from structure, management etc.
to economical model.
jfc
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, (continued)
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Gert Doering
- RE: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning
- RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Paul Vixie
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Joao Damas
- RE: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Sascha Lenz
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security,
jfcm <=
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Zefram
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning
|
|
|