IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 02 November 2015 04:27 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 BEA041B44E6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:27:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 v110zicaR5sb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:27:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D391B44E5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:27:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkfw189 with SMTP id w189so78322879vkf.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 20:27:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=eMaMH4aqf2Zty5UgWohGblErLYLxjFQWWePAetQDAKg=; b=TZQF8LAlkV7DpEPGaG8BFnqiNyeluZBeXxiDhvnW+kmZlMr1IYD+dg0ahIW5XWieYj GA5A47vwUhHrhtNzvMlB5TEHLlNGQfWbfQ/VFLkWUfmLVP3ltvXhDlcX+C6XPsDSCcqz j39Bhk3/kzMjCtQ9XR5bzAnOgXI/fONJL9/IyGGCvmxXXNtuZuweGn063iQrmpDb8KDO gAW/bKNjuNh0fL0WFvRXBt8PiQMkW+KUZsig96QSiVeA0p2vbOmtot62W+BDK+gM5RFj JfnHOcKQKHOVDakNeyFTVr+05sI2u7KEHOAAGbM8uwo7VNZ4EsbiAeIXoBCbtrMPIzEx U6sQ==
X-Received: by 10.31.56.72 with SMTP id f69mr12635023vka.27.1446438468877; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 20:27:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.67.194 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:27:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511020255350.15542@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20151101160702.19175.44949.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511020113120.15542@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5636AEF9.7010200@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2ySFh5fKEVaVBRKFP_79qNyUUODwNHV1JnsQZemH7Z-8A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511020255350.15542@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 15:27:19 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yMbiqeYAaK7nHJR5sUCeur+0k+eJFcUFvf941v7Nw=Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ci2PtQfcrw82coHdhWRSZfXpJWI>
Cc: v6ops list <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 04:27:50 -0000

On 2 November 2015 at 12:57, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> I agree with making sure to avoiding ambiguity, I know on occasion it
>> hasn't been clear to me whether somebody is describing a prefix with a
>> smaller number of addresses, or a shorter prefix length, which obviously
>> mean the complete opposites in terms of number of addresses within the
>> prefix, when they use "smaller prefix".
>
>
> What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?
>

That would be clearer.

I think the fundamental things to get right are to make clear when a
number of addressing related objects (e.g., numbers of addresses for
link attached hosts, or numbers of /64s in the case of prefixes being
assigned to links) is being described, and when a prefix length that
will contain that number of addressing related objects is being
described.

Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email