IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-00]

Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> Thu, 02 September 2010 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90093A67CF for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.664, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 abuie3EsTLr4 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103213A6856 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Or5aL-00081a-QW for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:55:53 +0000
Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr ([93.17.128.10]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <remi.despres@free.fr>) id 1Or5aF-00080p-9d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:55:47 +0000
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2221.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1AE137000087; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:55:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2221.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 16DDE7000089; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:55:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-SFR-UUID: 20100902085543937.16DDE7000089@msfrf2221.sfr.fr
Subject: Re: [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-00]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4C7C4F98.1050809@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:55:41 +0200
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <25EDA379-6E60-4363-B063-A5E8158E72F2@free.fr>
References: <4C7C334A.8070606@gmail.com> <m2tymb3byx.wl%randy@psg.com> <4C7C4F98.1050809@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Le 31 août 2010 à 02:40, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :

> On 2010-08-31 11:41, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> This should help to clarify the reasons for publishing
>>> draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework
>> 
>>>  o  What is the recommended prefix length for a large operator?
>>> 
>>>  o  What is the recommended prefix length for a medium operator?
>>> 
>>>  o  What is the recommended prefix length to hand out to customers?
>>> 
>>>  o  What is the recommended longest prefix length an operator should
>>>     accept from customers?
>> 
>> you gotta love it.  we spend a decade getting the ietf out of telling
>> operators how to run our business, and here we go again.
> 
> I agree that the end product in this case shouldn't be firm
> recommendations (see draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary for
> the discussion). But the reasons why different lengths suit
> different cases are worth describing.

A unique and more general question could IMHO convey this view, e.g.:
"Are there recommended prefix lengths for operators, in view of with sizes, and if yes which ones?" 

RD

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email