Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>st>, Andrew Smith writes:
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> > IMO Internetwork Address Sub-Group is about as obscure as you can get.
> 
> Yes - deliberately so. In MPOA we needed a term that carried absolutely
> no connotations of connectivity or the lack of it. This was purely a
> term for describing address summarisation. I think that is also the
> term that you are looking for. I, too, think that APR is the
> wrong term for what Yakov is describing - his term carries some connectivity
> implications with it, at least as currently defined in draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00
> .
> 
> > ....
> 
> We still need your NBMA definition.

Are you suggesting that we adapt IASG and give it no meaning at all so
that when we figure out what it is for the choice of term won't
conflict with the eventual usage?  Or are you being sarcastic?

Sounds like you wan a new term for NBMA.  I'll agree one is needed.

> > It seems you want a term that covers the case where there is an
> > address prefix that covers the NBMA network exactly.  I'll argue that
> > this is a special case of an NBMA, 
> 
> Agreed - for this special case it is not worth inventing a new TLA or FLA.

I also don't see that we need a new term for describe a prefix which
covers a subset of the NBMA or covers the NBMA completely.  (Or
whatever APR was supposed to mean).

> Andrew

Curtis