IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 00:45 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 EFC203A68B1 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 vm5uYrPK59oT for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C5B3A68C0 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OqEuc-000Jk1-G9 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:41:20 +0000
Received: from mail-gw0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1OqEuS-000JfF-1J for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:41:08 +0000
Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so3249307gwj.11 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Pe66V6yuP1n/9HQVYQqFz4udt51Vrg2awyLu4IpHUM=; b=q/NkIRzAgG6XeBwO4DmUg+Yv/UuwVt0iCV1uuryCluY+S5CLAJxsaCk3iYUihx30sk Y7CinZE9HqZiVsdgy4uwINvWjLtfU12Boc7dRV+Vi4OVdEtvlPIpZvK6Yg1e2SypglyE o1X8PW4UzKhrDmMh4ZRG8GnQNbYhcBdBdH9ws=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=gRznjISa2Y14jBaXzqLRtpzSC06ZqvGqGQQLiLWiPkirm7eBDuma8YWkfKBL0xN+tg In4RDiqbIJcZStYGIlbLPTTDQ4ULza+ypTc5FGB/VXj0zZ/1f6KandXAr5XSmxnierjC CuWIe0Y622wQi5/rczKnDxOliMadmqHMMHqJ4=
Received: by 10.220.122.151 with SMTP id l23mr3131120vcr.162.1283215249912; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w1sm4663381vbl.18.2010.08.30.17.40.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C7C4F98.1050809@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:40:56 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-00]
References: <4C7C334A.8070606@gmail.com> <m2tymb3byx.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2tymb3byx.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

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.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email