RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

> As far as why "site" has been abused to mean "administrative 
> domain", that comes from the IETF and RIRs being very 
> ISP-centric, as I said; a single downstream connection 
> denotes a single "site" regardless of how complex the 
> internal network behind it is or how many other locations it 
> serves.  Or maybe it doesn't, depending on who's talking; 
> that's the problem.

I have always believed that the definition of a site in IPv6 is tied in
with the idea that if every "site" has a /48 subnet assignment, then
migration to a different provider only requires changing the prefix
bits. The existing subnet topology hidden inside the /48 remains
unchanged.

By this definition an apartment or family home is a site. An office in
big buidling is a site. A company building is a site. A campus-like
collection of buildings is a site. Here is where definitions need to be
precise and relate back to original goals.

A single company may own several buildings and those buildings may be
next to each other. I believe that each separate building should be
considered to be a site. A campus is more than a collection of buildings
because it is difficult, or impossible to separate one building from the
group. On a campus there is centralization of utilities, even going so
far as to connect all buildings by tunnel systems and heat all buildings
via hot water from a central steam plant.

Why is the definition of a site so important? Because a "site" is
mobile. It can change providers and it can change ownership indpendent
of neighboring sites. By that definition, airplanes, trucks and train
carriages are also sites. They are just mobile more frequently than
sites in buildings.

I think it is important for the IETF to have clear documentation of the
interconnectedness of "sites", /48 prefixes, mobility, and freedom of
choice.

At least one RIR now allows ISPs to assign shorter /56 prefixes to
consumer sites, i.e. family homes and apartments. This is not
necessarily a bad thing since it is rare for a family home to turn into
an office without significant infrastructure change. But if there is to
be a special size for the family home, it too should be the same
worldwide. And it too should be documented by the IETF.

--Michael Dillon

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------