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

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Roger Jorgensen" <rogerj@jorgensen.no>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> This has been a longstanding problem in the IETF; in fact,
>>> the inability to agree on what "site" means was one of the
>>> reasons SLAs were deprecated.  The word "site" is often
>>> abused to mean "administrative domain" rather than "physical location" due 
>>> to the ISP-centric nature of the IETF
>>> and RIRs. It's virtually impossible to tell, in any particular
>>> context, which meaning an author meant.  We need to stop
>>> using the word entirely...
>> why does it mather if it is physical site, administrative domain
>> (eh how can anyone interprent that as a site?!) or a room,
>> company etc... why not leave that upto those that try to use it?
> It matters because there are a lot of protocol and policy documents that 
> refer to "sites".  For instance, one of the current qualifications for 
> getting an IPv6 LIR allocation require that one have a plan to make 
> assignments to 200 "sites".  Obviously the meaning of that is significantly 
> changed depending on whether you consider a single company with 200+ 
> locations sharing a single uplink to be one "site" or 200+ "sites".

if you refair to RIPEs policy it has just been changed,
"Consensus has been reached on the proposal described in 2006-02 and
it is accepted by the RIPE community.

This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and
the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policy".

You can find the full proposal at:

    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html
"

> Also, in the case of SLAs, the utility of the addresses is impacted greatly 
> by whether you consider a "site" to be a single administrative domain, where 
> there would not be internal collisions, vs. considering each distinct 
> location to be a "site", which could lead to hundreds or thousands of 
> internal collisions.

I can not see how SLAs are any of this wg's business, or ietfs businness. 
thought SLA was something for the laywers that write the contracts 
governing any SLAs to fight out between them?

> 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.

that downstream connection is ONE site for the upstream provider, will 
probably never be anything else. Why should it be anything else really? If 
the same "site" bought two connection to an ISP on different location they 
would still be one huge site, with several internal parts, two that the 
ISP need to know about.

What I'm not sure you realize is that the moment anyone define a site to 
be something very specific... there will come alot of exceptions to that 
list, not to forget discussion on how to interprent whats written there. 
It is way easier to say site and leave it with that... and maybe, just 
maybe list a few examples and leave it upto those that have to use the 
word site to agree between them.

-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger@jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------

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