Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 06:18:45PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Or is there another more appropriate name for the prefixes that are allowed in the DFZ? The replacement is LIR.
Which is quite ambiguous - a LIR usually doesn't mean "a /32 from 2001" but some legal entity with a given contractual status with a RIR...
And not every LIR has a (or multiple) prefixes yet from the RIRs. Btw from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#lir: 8<-------------------------------- 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are generally ISPs whose customers are primarily End Users and possibly other ISPs. -------------------------------->8
From draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt: 8<-------------------------------- 2.5.4 Global Unicast Addresses
The general format for IPv6 global unicast addresses is as follows: | n bits | m bits | 128-n-m bits | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ | global routing prefix | subnet ID | interface ID | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ -------------------------------->8 So should we actually be calling TLA's a GRP (Global Routing Prefix) ? I am currently using 'TLA' everywhere and I think it's quite appropriate as the prefixes are really the Top Level Aggregators. Mind you that Randy Bush also pointed it out to me at the last RIPE meeting and he is right, it is deprecated even though I use it for my GRH project quite a lot simply because I don't have a better wording for it... So what is the correct wording for it? GRP? Greets, Jeroen