Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management-02.txt

[MarcoH - lists <[e-mail]>]

> Hi,
> 
> This draft makes a strong case for coordinated address management.
> In my opinion, it makes no case at all for *centralized* address
> management. But apart from that one word to change, I think it's
> very good.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter

Tend to agree here, while I can see how the word “centralised” came in, we might be better off if this project would use the term “coordinated” address management where possible.

Further in response to the draft, Section 5 “requirements” in the second 2nd bullet reads:

"A fast return of unused resources for reassignment is of high value.”

While I can see this as a value for scarce resources such as IPv4 addresses or IP port ranges, I am not sure if this is a beneficial property for IPv6, where networks should be able to afford themselves the luxury of providing hosts with a stable address (prefix) when they require it.

For now I can probably live with the terminology used, but would like to see some clarification on how this requirement will be further expanded and refined to allow for more stable or predictable IPv6 prefixes, without the need to go full static (which would remove a lot of the benefits in efficiency).

Thanks,

MarcoH