IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 02 November 2015 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709DA1ACD47 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:08:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XebOWPgPujoM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4832D1ACD4E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5101FCAB9; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:08:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB62B160046; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99173160097; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id VIemQVzxCYqW; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5656C160046; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B183BA1F08; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:08:21 +1100 (EST)
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20151101160702.19175.44949.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511020113120.15542@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5636AEF9.7010200@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfXG_KbQJAv7zjTsX-Xe+6stMRKvGuS4m15gbBhEU9RMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:03:22 +0900." <CAJE_bqfXG_KbQJAv7zjTsX-Xe+6stMRKvGuS4m15gbBhEU9RMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:08:21 +1100
Message-Id: <20151102010821.A4B183BA1F08@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TAQU-o_LuiW_iYpt9Vyz1z3LzWg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:08:30 -0000

longer/shorter is unambigious as it describes the length.

larger/smaller can be a length or volume (a address count).

Mark

In message <CAJE_bqfXG_KbQJAv7zjTsX-Xe+6stMRKvGuS4m15gbBhEU9RMw@mail.gmail.com>
, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> I see there have been changes to replace "smaller" prefix size. Personally
>  I don't like "shorter" and "longer", it's not
> >> intuitive which is which (compare using -gt and -le in prefix filter lists
> ).
> >>
> >
> > "Smaller" is completely ambiguous - does it means smaller prefix or smaller
>  address block?
> 
> At the time of the WGLC I proposed the following text:
> 
>    Assigning prefixes with the length larger than 64 will limit...
> 
> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22862.html)
> 
> This may sound too verbose but shouldn't have any ambiguity.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email