ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt

2012-12-21 09:51:29
Hi Randy,

It seems that we need one or both or the following:

- a better title for the new column
- a better definition to be associated with that column

Any suggestions?

              Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:45 AM
To: IETF Disgust
Subject: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt

i remain confused.  i am not being pedantic just to be a pita.  i
really worry that this document will be used to justtify strange
brokenness.

from my 2012.11.29 message:

are the following definitions

   o  Routable - A boolean value indicating whether a IP datagram
whose
      destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose
      address block is routable (i.e., may traverse more than a
single
      IP interface)

   o  Global - A boolean value indicating whether a IP datagram whose
      destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose
      address block is routable beyond a specified administrative
      domain.

intended to be baked in hardware, or are they SHOULDs to operators?
i
look at RFC 1918 space and 127.0.0.0/8 and am not so sure how hard
these boundaries are meant to be.  i worry because i think we regret
how we specified (threw away is more like it) E space.

does the prefix describes a specific prefix length or a covering
range?

e.g. 192.0.0.0/24 is neither routable nor global, while a subnet,
192.0.0.0/29, is routable.  i.e. might i route and forward
192.0.0.128/25?

another annoying example.

0.0.0.0/8 is said to be not routable, yet we commonly announce it in
bgp (or igp) and propagate it.  a protocol implmentor reading this
document would be justified in preventing the injection of 0.0.0.0/8
into a routing protocol.  [ let's not get into that it is commonly in
the fib. ]

randy



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>