IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft

"YangGL" <iamyanggl@gmail.com> Sat, 11 September 2010 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <iamyanggl@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981A23A6834 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wKn9YTuhVbD9 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f172.google.com (mail-px0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C793A67C2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi6 with SMTP id 6so1535548pxi.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=ZbWPDX3NlpjLs7x1OKJ1kfzNGoLcslMN968MUwPauQA=; b=U8VHDBdBPpl/q8y9ZcpQc3Z0L2KgBrtcsIVLyIL2yo5sFJfBbf4gvhL0kldKW+WSOT ndJGSVnkV80m/LFpdAkeCSVnHIX0qcLurD4xFKwbf9ZZOYgsihdRJZFVI8f+2xURW6sO 4xbQMBgtehfF8JnhYw6Mz7AHh7ZQOTwQHwf1A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=Dn3aoPEyBXKJkqhapHoRBqDgRyKPv4JiiuIMeMgYNbavMBsfRYqMhUpxFqSTvCmmae TPX7uWdVjai/Y3FqnGYay0lOik5pJnNSkYtAv2EhLJfZOKcxHN7n1CZOggDFRLKsbCZm zxqaHHOsqcP+Cd9K+q7YJr8VKbk/FY0k0te9A=
Received: by 10.114.120.20 with SMTP id s20mr1763142wac.60.1284165693339; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LocalHost ([113.112.159.220]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d38sm5556682wam.20.2010.09.10.17.41.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: YangGL <iamyanggl@gmail.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'Randy Bush' <randy@psg.com>
References: <ABF50F8F-DB45-4E22-84CF-63F4E19396C4@cisco.com> <m2zkvp4ir3.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2occ54gzz.wl%randy@psg.com> <4C8A94CE.1090106@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C8A94CE.1090106@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:41:27 +0800
Message-ID: <002a01cb514a$16a73e00$43f5ba00$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActRJrSNjaJ+Fp1OQGqSasWS2PFSMQAIofoA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:41:07 -0000

I think this issue of address space should be discuss in IETF first. The
guidelines from IETF will be a suggestion, but form RIRs, will be a policy.
It is different.


Best regards,
Yang Guoliang


-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 4:28 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft

On 2010-09-11 05:59, Randy Bush wrote:
>>     "The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is a
>>      policy issue under the purview of the RIRs"
>>
>> this is not the case in v4 or v6.  the rirs may make recommendations.
>> it is the operator's decision how to manage ip space assigned to
>> customers.
> 
> not to just whine, but to try to suggest an approach.
> 
>   The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an
>   issue for the operational community.

I agree, although it would be factually correct to add that suggested
guidelines are discussed by the RIR community.

     Brian
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email