IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Howard, Lee" <lee.howard@twcable.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lee.howard@twcable.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 AEC101ACD26 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:08:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.664
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, 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 nBOlU9w8Ml4a for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:08:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdcipgw01.twcable.com (unknown [165.237.91.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E63D1ACD17 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:08:18 -0800 (PST)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.64.163.156
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,236,1444708800"; d="scan'208";a="446754558"
Received: from unknown (HELO exchpapp15.corp.twcable.com) ([10.64.163.156]) by cdcipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 02 Nov 2015 19:59:53 -0500
Received: from EXCHPAPP15.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.156) by exchpapp15.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:08:16 -0500
Received: from EXCHPAPP15.corp.twcable.com ([10.245.162.20]) by exchpapp15.corp.twcable.com ([10.245.162.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:08:16 -0500
From: "Howard, Lee" <lee.howard@twcable.com>
To: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>, "markzzzsmith@gmail.com" <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRFdQeDxFOz/D4SUiszlgIbHpl/A==
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:08:16 +0000
Message-ID: <D25E37A1.C9544%Lee.Howard@twcable.com>
References: <CAO42Z2ySFh5fKEVaVBRKFP_79qNyUUODwNHV1JnsQZemH7Z-8A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511020255350.15542@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAO42Z2yMbiqeYAaK7nHJR5sUCeur+0k+eJFcUFvf941v7Nw=Lw@mail.gmail.com> <20151102.105228.439899806.he@uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <20151102.105228.439899806.he@uninett.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.7.151005
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.64.163.240]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.1191-8.000.1202-21918.002
x-tm-as-result: No--42.417800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <6F85A8FB4DC26C4B92BE7CA7115FF27E@twcable.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sNEaQEb99hdTiDusCueMGF18oXw>
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:08:20 -0000

</hat>
I find prefix length to be a clear descriptor. However, apparently not
everyone does, so the term should be defined before using it throughout
the document.
Prefixes have length (longer/shorter), blocks have volume
(larger/smaller). IMHO.

Lee

<hat>

On 11/2/15, 6:52 PM, "v6ops on behalf of Havard Eidnes"
<v6ops-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of he@uninett.no> 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.
>
>To me that's still borderline ambigious, and I don't understand
>why anyone would want to use borderline ambigious wording when
>writing RFCs or discussing them.
>
>It's not clear whether it's the prefix-length which is "smaller"
>or "larger" or the address space covered which is "smaller" or
>"larger", and they each point in the direction of different
>interpretations.  In other words, you don't "size" a prefix, but
>you "size" the address space covered.  A prefix, on the other
>hand, has length, so to my eyes the above looks ... awkward.
>
>Therefore I'm suggesting the more unambigious "shorter/longer
>prefix" as preferable.
>
>Regards,
>
>- Håvard
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email