Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 29 November 2012 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E2121F8C3A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:42:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3kl0Vq+uivH8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E44C21F8BFF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1TeBsX-000BzC-Bl for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:42:41 +0000
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:42:40 +0900
Message-ID: <m2fw3s2ii7.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <20121129205534.8983.43593.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20121129205534.8983.43593.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:42:42 -0000

first cuppa, so i am easily confuddled.  and apologies for doing this at
last call.

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?

randy