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

Tim Chown <> Mon, 06 May 2013 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059BD21F860B; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MM2Kv4sCixzj; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7328A21F859B; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r46GQXx2031601; Mon, 6 May 2013 17:26:33 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 r46GQXx2031601
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1367857594; bh=a4l+aSSARNwGz2AqrW5G4eZdHFM=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=L82Xa2K/Kwfl4zOPNpitfsUTWpEkGMuBe5kK7NKyVoWWPWRwqcB1T/6mizDZyWsKB mXLdjfWP5Qi8+e6PaZH763lxFVvGf7/i7cVK4OZKVyDE/SVQqvc8aqkcu3fcSNYh+H /Br4D/UEvQ85KDwBdpY3AjzBzu3TChsOxf9N8LEY=
Received: from ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p45HQX0430647178yw ret-id none; Mon, 06 May 2013 17:26:33 +0100
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r46GPCHe011521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 May 2013 17:25:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 17:25:11 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8d29bcd8f9cb5293eee024b76facd925p45HQX03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: joel jaeggli <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=p45HQX043064717800; tid=p45HQX0430647178yw; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=8:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r46GQXx2031601
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: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:26:52 -0000

On 30 Apr 2013, at 16:43, joel jaeggli <> wrote:

> On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
>>> On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
>>>> [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.
> I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem with the idea that it would be an informative reference.   but yes it's a bit much to say go read this.
>>> Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its text
>>> into an Appendix.
>>> Tim Chown, any opinion?
>> The most recent version (and the one slated for the next telechat) still has this long-expired draft referenced.


The old renumbering "thinkabout" draft came out of experiments on IPv6 renumbering we did in 6NET some 10 (yikes!) years ago, for both enterprise and ISP networks. I think most of what was written is still applicable.  Brian borrowed a fair deal of it for RFC 5887.  I stopped work on it as there was little/no interest in the problem in v6ops at the time (or whatever v6ops was called back then). We produced technical 6NET reports separately, and did some follow-up work with Cisco separately.

Personally I don't mind if the principles are mentioned without the explicit reference - an ack in the Acknowledgements is adequate. 

It would be interesting to review the "thinkabout" draft to see how much still holds true.  Glancing at it, sections like "Application and Service-Oriented Issues" are still very much relevant. I guess Stig and I could consider advancing it along the Independent Submission path, or look for publication to an appropriate journal.  Life is short :)