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

On 2007-07-13 18:16, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
> 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 think another reason we've often expanded the meaning of 'site' is
because the IETF has never come to grips with the fact that most
multi-site companies (in the geographical sense) have intranets that
interconnect those sites and are multiply connected to the Internet.
Since we don't have an IETF term for such topologies, apart from AS,
we confuse ourselves.

On 2007-07-13 21:28, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
...
> I think it is important for the IETF to have clear documentation of the
> interconnectedness of "sites", /48 prefixes, mobility, and freedom of
> choice.

We should certainly provide technology that allows freedom of choice,
but the IETF can't do more than that.

> 
> 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.

Actually the IAB tried (RFC 3177) and the RIRs chose another
approach, which is where /56 comes from.

     Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------