Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 02 April 2013 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D910121F97A6; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.48
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yt7JYDKMwFsg; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07AC21F9776; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u12so179306wey.33 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sn/5PJyrWKgXR2Yr614/5IZ0Wx5Bb9oYiO+TYeHmQnI=; b=VEpnfDuuQD/pYpfOM3xOejxmcSNxgJmp5ZDwGKmB8/MKXKWnCsuLPJ3Wp7aZ9iKgOq b85yhPcDJtRn/36G2l8iY/gQUFMrmpl1oyTSOzMd+09kKGqBL+fCMcV2z1eKtgMP8hIa xmBmz/mUDQqn0RMV/E7QxYhaivRytXZLJcpSi0qZ6ZCOUS8aLNdC9FItXb53YM0OaEww DqjNsm0MYPBI8VERhmwmS3sgXaOXKDtOGB8Dhu86H4lFRgMZ5dZQxdFDs1MJsRijNQPx TiiFyW37jA/duxSBTgjlNH4QtfcODtQNySBqI/ICyCzQSGN+3nFy5O6sgQp0r/Ap4Wh3 Wa2A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id bp9mr20469780wjb.57.1364896691847; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id bk1sm1494604wib.2.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:58:13 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Liubing (Leo)" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Re: [renum] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:58:45 -0000

Just picking a couple of points for further comment:

On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
> Hi, Robert

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Sparks []

>> The document currently references
>> draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout
>> several times.
>> That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply
>> restate what is
>> important from that document here and reference it only once in the
>> acknowlegements
>> rather than send the reader off to read it.
> [Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout is an important input for the gap analysis. Although the draft is expired, most of the content are still valid. 
> draft-chown is a more comprehensive analysis, while the gap draft is focusing on gaps in enterprise renumbering. So it might not easy to abstract several points as important from draft-chown to this draft. We actually encourage people to read it.

Robert is right, though, sending people to a long-expired draft is a bad idea.
Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text
into an Appendix.

Tim Chown, any opinion?

>> RFC4076 seems to say very similar things to this document. Should it
>> have been referenced?
> [Bing] RFC4076 is a more specific case of stateless-DHCPv6 [RFC3736], which might not be common usage in enterprise. But sure we can consider reference it. 

Yes, and check if it identifies any gaps that we should mention.

Bing: we should also add a reference to RFC 4085 "Embedding Globally-Routable
Internet Addresses Considered Harmful" which I missed for RFC 6866.

>> Section 5.3 punts discussion of static addresses off to RFC 6866. That
>> document was scoped
>> only to Enterprise Networks. The scope of this document is larger. 

As Bing said, the *intended* scope is enterprise networks. We should
add that in the Abstract and Introduction. Indeed, many of the points
are more general.

Thanks again Robert!